Six sense base question

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19948
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Six sense base question

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: That exercise proves nothing... it conflates vinnana (consciousness) which is not part of nama, with manasikara (attention, advertence) which is.
I really don't understand this particular argument.

[And I thought nama usually included all the mental aggregates, as in Image, though I see there that he says that in the DO sequence it doesn't. Another one of those annoying multiple meanings?]
retrofuturist wrote: So to answer your question, "Can you experience two things simultaneously?", the answer is yes,
(in your opinion, of course...)
retrofuturist wrote: and no scholarly treatise can convince me otherwise. If someone can find some Buddhavacana to suggest otherwise, then perhaps I will reconsider my position, but otherwise, I see no justification for doing so.
Fair enough. You've made your position clear. As I said, I believe that some of the other early sects held your opinion, so it's clearly not easy to figure out from the Suttas.

In any case, I wasn't really interested in scholarly treatises, I was talking about my experience and the experiences of my teachers.

Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27860
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Six sense base question

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ben,
Ben wrote:Appearances can be deceiving, Retro.
Of course. That's precisely why we're still plagued by avijja, but does taking something that was not taught by the Buddha, which contradicts one's experience, and is not "to be seen here & now" something really worth accepting without the slightest bit of investigation? These things are to be tested. Only through testing can they be known or found to be lacking in verification.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27860
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Six sense base question

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote: That exercise proves nothing... it conflates vinnana (consciousness) which is not part of nama, with manasikara (attention, advertence) which is.
I really don't understand this particular argument.
You do understand the difference between them though, yes?

That one can only advert one's attention to one thing, does not mean that one is unconscious of all else.

If one takes the finger exercise, one is only demonstrating that one can only advert one's attention to one thing at a time... not that one can only be conscious of one thing at a time.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Six sense base question

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote: That exercise proves nothing... it conflates vinnana (consciousness) which is not part of nama, with manasikara (attention, advertence) which is.
I really don't understand this particular argument.
You do understand the difference between them though, yes?

That one can only advert one's attention to one thing, does not mean that one is unconscious of all else.

If one takes the finger exercise, one is only demonstrating that one can only advert one's attention to one thing at a time... not that one can only be conscious of one thing at a time.

Metta,
Retro. :)
What does modern brain research show?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27860
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Six sense base question

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:What does modern brain research show?
I don't know... but unless it was based on personal experience and verification, I would be deeply suspicious of its ability to objectively 'prove' any point in relation to what it cannot see and experience.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Six sense base question

Post by Ben »

Hi Retro
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Ben,
Ben wrote:Appearances can be deceiving, Retro.
Of course. That's precisely why we're still plagued by avijja, but does taking something that was not taught by the Buddha, which contradicts one's experience, and is not "to be seen here & now" something really worth accepting without the slightest bit of investigation? These things are to be tested.

Metta,
Retro. :)

I couldn't agree more.
And because we are still plagued by avijja, our views conditioned by avijja, I for one am very reluctant to disregard the works of the Abhidhamma compilers or the early commentarians based on my perceptions, predelictions and interpretations of the Dhamma and my limited experience because they again are conditioned by ignorance. I'm of the opinion that the compilers of the abhidhamma and the early commentarians were a great deal wiser and more realised than I, and probably motivated deeply by compassion to help explain the Dhamma to others. They may not be 100 percent right but I'm not qualified and I don't think anyone else here is qualified to offer a correction. What I do believe is that their works are potentially a valuable tool for our own understanding and progress on he path.

The Buddha never said we should accept anything blindly - whether it was the words of another or his own words. Investigate for yourself, through bhavana, to come to the truth regarding the efficacy of the Dhamma and the nature of reality.
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Six sense base question

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:What does modern brain research show?
I don't know... but unless it was based on personal experience and verification, I would be deeply suspicious of its ability to objectively 'prove' any point in relation to what it cannot see and experience.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If it is based upon "personal experience and verification," whose counts, based upon what?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Six sense base question

Post by acinteyyo »

As I see it there's possibly a contradiction between Abhidhamma and Sutta.
It is said in MN18:
Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. (...)
Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises. (...)
Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises. (...)
Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises. (...)
Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises.
It is possible and everybody can verify it experiential, that there are forms, sounds and so on (sense-objects) and eye, ear and so on (senses) present in the same moment. Dependent on sense-objects and senses the respective consciousness arises. If there are eye and forms and ear and sounds at the same time, there arises (and have to be) eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness at the same time. Why should it be different?

Here attention (manasikāra) becomes very important, because it is "responsible for modification of the perspective" of an experience in a given moment. Manasikāra brings something out, to the foreground, while everything else becomes the background of the experience, which gives rise to kind of a perspective, which is part of the illusion of a subject to whom an object is present.
This is for example why Sobeh didn't see the hand of his friend.
Sobeh wrote:One time I was daydreaming and staring off into space, and didn't see when my friend was waving his hand in front of my face.
There was eye-consciousness depending on the eye and form (his friends hand), but because of manasikāra this was possibly put deeply into the background of the experience, which then didn't really come into the focus of perception.

This is completely in accordance with my own experience in opposition to what the Abhidhamma teachings say.
I couldn't find a sutta reference for what I say on manasikāra. My understanding developed out of the shorter notes on viññāna by Ven. Ñanavira Thera and my examination on the subject in practice, so just my two cents...

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27860
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Six sense base question

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings all,

acinteyyo ~ thank you for your lucid posting, it accords with my understanding and experience
tiltbillings wrote:If it is based upon "personal experience and verification," whose counts, based upon what?
The individual, based on their experience (thereby rendering what 'science' says less important than what a kalyana-mitta with right view might have to share on the subject). Who else is going to know the truth for you? Even Buddhas can only point the way.
Ben wrote:What I do believe is that their works are potentially a valuable tool for our own understanding and progress on he path.
It is good you are using them and testing them in this capacity rather than simply treating them as an object of veneration. Do let us know if your utilization of these teachings (past, present or future) provides any insights pertinent to the topic.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Six sense base question

Post by Reductor »

tiltbillings wrote:
thereductor wrote:
I cannot say that you, personally, will feel both fingers. But standing at my computer, holding my fingers out, I'm pretty sure I feel both index fingers tingling. What matters, if you want to feel more than one part on the body at a time, is the scope of awareness. If your awareness is narrow, as it usually is in waking life, then focusing on two feelings at once can be tricky.
There is a huge qualitative difference between sitting at your computer feeling both fingers at the same time, or thinking you do and the experience of paying attention to sensations with a precise attention with a deeply concentrated, mindful mind.
Hence my first post in response to Mike. When I am concentrated I do feel more than just my two index fingers. Do you not think that to be possible?
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Six sense base question

Post by Reductor »

appicchato wrote:
...feel both index fingers tingling...then focusing on two feelings at once...
That, and three bucks, will get you a cup of coffee...
Interestingly, I didn't raise the discussion about fingers.
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Six sense base question

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

The "data rate" of consciousness is quite slow. I would have to dig in my library to find my books, but I recall one by a chap named Walker, who was a physics teacher at the same college Robert Anton Wilson taught. I think his book was called The Physics of Consciousness, but would have to check to make sure. He calculated the data rate of consciousness and it came out much slower than we would suspect. He said no one believed him, but experiments much later proved he was not far off. One of his conclusions was that when we're driving a car at 65 MPH, we're actually 12 feet further along than we "think" we are.

One experiment was pretty much common sense and demonstrated a quality of the human mind that I found fascinating. The time for nerve impulses to travel the length of the human body to the brain and back again is pretty slow. People were stuck in the big toe with pins and of course, they registered pain, yelped, and pulled their foot away. They said the pain sensation was simultaneous to the pin prick. But when they were blindfolded, there was a noticeable delay between the pinprick and the yell-and-recoil. So the conclusion was the person's mind was editing reality to make sense of it, in other words, correlating the visual input with the input of the nerves!

Other studies indicated our minds do this quite often, dropping out points of time here and there to make senses of the different "lags" in out various sensory inputs so everything correlates. Otherwise, we would walk around with various conflicting signals due to the inefficient nature of our sense-organs. So there are "gaps" in reality we simply do not remember. Therefore, if this research is valid, it is not possible even on a coarse level for our minds to process all sense-data simultaneously, not to mention on the near-microscopic citta-level described by the abhidhamma.

There is also a phenomenon called selective amnesia, often experienced by people texting or talking on the cell phone wile driving. You actually do not see some things while involved in multitasking complicated procedures, your brain edits them out. Driving simulations demonstrate this. I've also recreated this in my hypnosis demonstrations. I tell the subjects the hypnotist is invisible, but anything I'm holding is visible. Their eyes do not register me, but will dilate when I bring the objects into view. Eye dilation is controlled partially by autonomous and autonomous systems so I find this fascinating. The mind can truly edit reality.

So I have reason to believe the "serial processing" model of citta presented by the Theravada abhidhamma has some validity to it.

Oh yeah--it's also a lot more complex than just the six sense cittas, there are other cittas that precede the sense cittas, follow them when they pass away, and there's also the bvangha-citta which conditions everything. :juggling:

I hope this helps cast some light on the subject from another point of view. If not, ignore . :P

J
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Six sense base question

Post by Kenshou »

Therefore, if this research is valid, it is not possible even on a coarse level for our minds to process all sense-data simultaneously
I can believe that there's a degree of lag, however I don't quite see how what you've posted has to do with how much sense data can be processed at one time potentially, though experience will show that it is certainly possible to be focused on one thing enough to block out others, so maybe you're right on the -all- part. Who knows.

Playing around with all this, I've noticed that the very act of focusing in and attempting to pinpoint discreet moments of consciousness is what seems to create the feeling of attention jumping from one place to the other. When I try to be more relaxed about it, it's much easier to be aware of multiple points with out the jumpy-feeling. But maybe all I'm doing is blurring the focus so that the little jumps of attention aren't registered.

Also, I'm not sure if the Abhidhammic stance is that each citta can take only one object at a time or can only have one object of consciousness at a time, or if there is a difference. Thing is, experience shows that pretty much all sensations are really sort of an effervescent mist of little points, the faculty of saññá helps create the sense of discreet objects, nevertheless in reality things are not so clear cut. If the mind can truly only be aware of one thing at a time, then it must be asked how do we define "one thing"? Am I entirely absorbed in the act of being aware of whatever the smallest unit of experience is, nevertheless so quickly that I'm not aware of it? I'm skeptical, but that certainly would require a ridiculously fast citta-rate.
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Six sense base question

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

The abhidhammic stance (at least Thera abhidhma) is that there is one discrete citta at a time, and these citta moments are incredibly fast. "Normal" cognition/attention cannot perceive them. It takes a very advanced meditator to perceive these discrete states.

Venerable Dhamannando could weigh in here as he is expert in these matters.

J
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Six sense base question

Post by acinteyyo »

What does this mean "there can only be one citta at a time"? What is meant by "one citta" and "at a time"?
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Post Reply