In the absence of vinnana there is...?

[kirk5a]

When one's mindfulness and concentration get very precise and exceedingly rapid, I would say it is like I describe it.

Are you sure this isn't just how it looks with a very narrowed scope of attention? As you say - "very precise" - that sounds like focusing on something very specific rather than a wider field.

[tiltbillings]

When one's mindfulness and concentration get very precise and exceedingly rapid, I would say it is like I describe it.

Are you sure this isn't just how it looks with a very narrowed scope of attention? As you say - "very precise" - that sounds like focusing on something very specific rather than a wider field.

Always the problem with language. One can be precise in wide-angle.

The description here may or may not help:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 894#p76894

But the description of this meditative experience does point to the extreme difficulty in talking about these things, which is why I rarely do.

[acinteyyo]

Actually from a standpoint of meditative experience it presents itself exactly like I decribed it. I'm not talking about a "touch/smell viññāna". There is no such type of viññāna and it isn't necessary to still be conform with the Buddha's teaching.

When one's mindfulness and concentration get very precise and exceedingly rapid, I would say it is like I describe it.

This is not to say that there are not multiple impingements upon the sensory apparatus at any one time, but I would argue based upon meditative experience (and I was not looking for this) and based upon the suttas that the awareness of the impingements is of one impingement at a time, happening at such rapidity that gives us the sense, at a more normal speed, of simultaneity. But also, it is an awareness of a flow of experience which contain multiple conditions/conditionings that are happening at simultaneuosly, it would seem, but awareness of any one of them is sequential. I certainly could be wrong in this, though I do not think so, but I have yet to see an convincing argument otherwise.

When one's mindfulness and concentration get very precise and exceedingly rapid, I would say it is like I describe it.

Are you sure this isn't just how it looks with a very narrowed scope of attention? As you say - "very precise" - that sounds like focusing on something very specific rather than a wider field.

Always the problem with language. One can be precise in wide-angle.

The description here may or may not help:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4956&p=76894p76894#p76894

But the description of this meditative experience does point to the extreme difficulty in talking about these things, which is why I rarely do.

Hi Tilt,
maybe my attempts to express myself clearly are just too poor when it comes to the extreme difficulty in talking about these things.
What you said doesn't contradict how I see it. That the awareness of the impingements is of one impingement at a time, when one's mindfulness and concentration get very precise seems so IMO due to manasikāra (attention or direction of emphasis). A phenomenon cannot present all aspects at once with equal emphasis. Experience is always particular or selective, one thing to the fore at once and the rest receding in the background. So from my point of view I can understand that it may seem that awareness of the impingement is of one impingement at a time depending on direction of emphasis. "At more normal speed" means to me broader direction of emphasis which is the reason why more of those impingements appear in awareness simultaneously. The amount of impingements one is aware of at a time may not have varied at all only the direction of emphasis over experience has changed.

Anyway I don't try to convice anybody. I have said how I see it, everyone's free to use or dismiss whatever he or she likes...

best wishes, acinteyyo

[tiltbillings]

when one's mindfulness and concentration get very precise seems so IMO due to manasikāra (attention or direction of emphasis).

Actually, what I am referring to is a "choiceless awareness" type practice, so it is not a matter of conscious emphasis of direction of awareness.

Anyway I don't try to convice anybody. I have said how I see it, everyone's free to use or dismiss whatever he or she likes...

As i have said more than once: opinion vary, and I would add I always try to keep Seng-ts'an's dictum in mind, "cease to cherish opinions."

[acinteyyo]

when one's mindfulness and concentration get very precise seems so IMO due to manasikāra (attention or direction of emphasis).

Actually, what I am referring to is a "choiceless awareness" type practice, so it is not a matter of conscious emphasis of direction of awareness.

viññāna depends on nāmarūpa and part of nāma is manasikāra. If there is any awareness I would say there is also manasikāra and thus it's always a matter of direction of emphasis. Whether one calls it "choiceless" or not.

[tiltbillings]

when one's mindfulness and concentration get very precise seems so IMO due to manasikāra (attention or direction of emphasis).

Actually, what I am referring to is a "choiceless awareness" type practice, so it is not a matter of conscious emphasis of direction of awareness.

viññāna depends on nāmarūpa and part of nāma is manasikāra. If there is any awareness I would say there is also manasikāra and thus it's always a matter of direction of emphasis. Whether one calls it "choiceless" or not.

You are splitting hares here. I prefer my bunnies whole. And what can drive the the direction of emphasis? Conscious choice or the intensity of the impingement. And I am not talking about conscious choice. In letting the impingement itself drive the movement of awareness makes my point.

[MattJ]

I thought the first page or so was interesting, then came the weeds.

So was the original question about deep sleep ever answered?

[tiltbillings]

And this is equally true of the Abhidhamma.

Well, this will be the crux of the issue, and it goes too far afield from the OP to discuss here in detail, but the point is that "one citta at a time" is event-based, as on that view one citta is a discreet entity distinct from others, with clear boundaries that, while relational, are nevertheless distinguished. While the Suttas remain enclosed by the process of suffering and the process of liberation, the abhidhamma begins to obsess over the series of mental events which comprise that process. I will see your Piatigorsky and raise you a Ronkin on this analysis (see Concluding Remarks, in particular beginning page 248).

Since Piatigorsky's position essentially is in line with Ven Nyanaponika's points made in his ABHIDHAMMA STUDIES. It is also supported Prof. Dr. Y. Karunadasa, THE DHAMMA THEORY, page 9 http://www.zeh-verlag.de/download/dhammatheory.pdf in his look at the early ideas of dhamma theory, not so much the later notions, I would say my position is defensible. As for Ronkin, I shrug my shoulders.

Only if it were an accurate portrayal of the Abhidhamma (Pitaka texts), which it is not.

So, the claim that the abhidhamma generates an event-based metaphysics of mind does have support, as cited above. That this differs from the process-oriented SuttaVinaya is also evident. The question is whether this difference is meaningful, which I contend to be the case since the Buddha did not ever parse the Dhamma in that way over the course of decades of teaching.

You are the one calling this an "event-based metaphysics of mind." I don't buy into that; I don't need to defend a position I do not take. While I am not a big fan of the Abhidhamma (Pitaka), I am not going to dismiss it out of hand as many do, based upon . . . . well, damdifino.

[tiltbillings]

I thought the first page or so was interesting, then came the weeds.

So was the original question about deep sleep ever answered?

Variously.

[chownah]

It seems that some people experience their mental processes as being linear and sequential (fast arising of events one at a time with no overlap of events) and some do not experience it that way but experience it more as being parallel (events arise simultaneously and overlap is the usual mode). If this is correct then I wonder why this is so. Not picking sides here could it be that our minds function in this way or that way depending on conditioning? Could it be that if conditions are right we see our mental processes as being linear/sequential and if conditions are right we see our mental processes as being parallel? Note that what I just said has lumped two ideas together....there is the idea that different minds might FUNCTION in different ways and there is the idea that different people might PERCEIVE it to function in different ways.

So...if there can be this difference (maybe what I'm saying is just flat out wrong) then to what might it be attributed?....that is to say what makes it function or appear to function differently for different people? My view is that perhaps our past experiences creates conditions for this. Could it be that if someone strongly grasps a view of how the mind functions then this will actually influence either the minds functioning or it will influence how we perceive the minds functioning?

chownah

[tiltbillings]

It seems that some people experience their mental processes as being linear and sequential (fast arising of events one at a time with no overlap of events) and some do not experience it that way but experience it more as being parallel (events arise simultaneously and overlap is the usual mode).

I am not sure upon what basis you are making this comment, but from what I written it is not that simple. So, if you are referring to me in this statement, please go back and reread what I have written in the subject.