Difference between sensation and knowing the sensation

In a lot of things that I have run into they mention that there is "knowing" that can be noted and the sensation itself. How do I know which is which? Though sometimes i feel like I might be able to notice them I can't be quite sure when I try to see it. Also how would I alternate between the two (to cause the pulsations in bodily sensations and eventual dissolutions). I've been having quite an odd time with this. it totally slips my awareness unless it has to do with strong rare moments of recognition of a sensations.

Eddy, I have a problem making this distinction because it seems to happen so fast. If I'm aware of a sensation... is that really the sensation or the mental thought of the sensation?

Rather than trying to be perfect about this, I just try to be aware of sensation after sensation as immediately and as best I can. I've sorta given up on being exact about this and it seems like I'm making okay progress.

Have other folks really benefitted from making the distinction between sensations and the knowing of sensations? Any guidance for us?

I would think that actually seeing the "sensation" and the "knowing" of given sensations as a conscious perception in real-time is impossible (though maybe more advanced practitioners can tell me I'm wrong). I don't think it matters for practice.

The best I've been able to do, I think, is recognizing "this is a knowing, not the sensation itself". I get a sense that there's a kind of "mask" of knowing that covers all bare sensations, and that causes frustration or disappointment- and somewhere in there is the recursive, paradoxical aspect of practice that makes it so endlessly interesting...

Of course, as soon as you're thinking about it, sensation is long gone, and you're firmly in the zone of "knowing", or rather, of "sensing" and "knowing" new thought-formations based on an already-obsolete prior "knowing".

Since I have a habit of overcomplicating these things, I tell myself that all this goes un "under the hood" and always will, and it's OK. Trying to experience the "knowing" in every individual sensation in order to awaken, would be like inventing pet names for each of your blood-cells in order to have good blood pressure.

I've wondered about this sometimes, since one of my meditation teachers
wrote a small book titled "Seeing Without Knowing". I've wondererd if
that's possible what would it mean? No seperation from what's seen?
That's still beyond me.

Even for a pre-pather like me, it has a few times seemed clear
that a sensation was being followed by a feeling of knowing it.
Perceiving that just came on by accident.
Don't know if one sensation can actually know another sensation,
that doesn't seem to make sense. But that's how it felt.

That's made me wonder if the sense of knowing things is
connected to ego delusion. But I thought some experienced yogis
here discouraged pursuing that track as a dead end, compared
to not worrying about it and just noting.

I'd be very interested to hear what advanced yogis say about this.

For me, it takes strong concentration, mindfulness and consistent, accurate noting to be able to differentiate between these two sensations but it's possible. This is just based on my own experience so please don't take it as a definite answer, it's just an opinion.

"Seeing Without Knowledge" is what happens when we can experience reality without the illusion of self, i.e. in the seeing, just the seen. It's incredibly simple in experience but I find it difficult to accurately describe in words, basically there is sensation arising and passing, as they do, but that's it. There's no mental process involved, "I" have been removed from the equation in the sense that the sensation occurs but there's no-one there to experience it in the way that there was before the "self" has been seen through.

In practical terms, at first I note the physical rising and falling of the abdomen as "rising" and "falling" but, after a while, you begin to notice that the sensation of "rising" is happening, and that you're aware of it, before you note the movement itself. From here, I'll move to extending the noting to cover the entire sensation from first being noticed to the rising occurring and note it as "riiiiissssiiiinnngggg" and gradually start noting more sensations while returning to the breath periodically. If you continue, you'll begin to notice that sensations occur before the cognition of it. It's that simple. It's easy to understand that intellectually but the direct experience of it will clarify it infinitely better.

I'm sure more advanced yogis on here could explain this clearer than I can but hopefully that was of some use to you.

Nik posted a great article on this called "Nama & rupa practice" (if memory isn't failing me). It is on the Hamilton Project site.

I think that I'm just starting to get this, so while I'm comfortable talking about it, it's still pretty new to me. That having been said, in my experience you can get all tangled up in the question of whether anything can even technically be just the sensation without the cognizing. My advice is to not think about that but rather to start by trying to distinguish between the sensation and the "pleasant, unpleasant & nuetral" labels that the mind sticks on them. There is an instant of pure experiencing before the mind does this, and it is something that goes by very fast. But if you look for it over and over you can catch it. Once you got that, then it becomes more clear what is actual sensation and what is everything else. You could probably do this with other stuff, like thoughts and emotions, and distinguish between them and sensations, but I've had the best results with the craving and aversion work, so I recommend that.

Yeh that is how i see the difference between sensation and knowing sensation. What Ron said.

One way of seeing how the perception aggregate and the tones of sensations (vedana) aggregate overlay the initial apperception of the bare sensation (rupa experienced without tone or evaluation) is by asking the AF related question "How am I experiencing this very moment of being alive?" (Just to be clear, AF is not my current goal, but this pointer is still very useful from a buddhist point of view)

As soon as I ask myself this question, the mind will focus on the pure sensate experience of sensations within the body or one of the other senses and their objects. There will be several moments of pure sensate experience without any evaluation of tone placed on the sensation. The aggregate of vedana pops up right after this experience. Then I just look at that aggregate and they way the mind perceives "pleasant, unpleasant or neutral" in the sensations being observed. I will watch this perception closely with the view that it is impermanent and will eventually drop away. This is what then happens eventually. The perception of the tone of sensation drops away, and I am left with the bare apperception of the sensation. Then the vedana aggregate will pop up again and I repeat the process. What I am finding is that when I do this, any "tension" or "stress" that is felt due to aversion towards an unpleasant sensation for example, will drop away when the mind is seeing it with the idea that it will eventually drop away. It seems to separate the mind from holding that "unpleasant" tone in the usual habitual way (with aversion) and thus any tension or stress is immediately released and suffering drops away in those moments of clarity.

Proof is in the pudding.

Hi Nik,

I've got a question, because your post kind of challenges my idea of sensations and feeling.

I always assumed that sensations arise at their usual furious pace, and that each sensation is instantaneously accomanied with its feeling-tone. If you're good, you can note the feeling-tone that accompanies *some* of those sensations, as they whiz by, but they are gone before you can "know" the life of the sensation and its feeling..

You seem to be saying one of 2 things- do either of these sound right to you?

(1) As you do this investigation, the very arising of vedana alongside sensations phases in and out, so as sensations flow onward, you don't get a feeling-tone off of some of them at all. That is when you are experiencing bare sensation.

or

(2) As you do this investigation, you can follow the life-cycle of a single "sensation" over a span of time and watch its feeling-tone arise and then vanish, while that one sensation is going on, and therefore re-discover the "bare sensation". I would have thought this wasn't possible, because "a sensation" exists only in an infinitesimal space of time, and all that follows is just "thoughts about that sensation", which are actually just a string of other sensations with their own vedanas.

Most likely I am off-base in both these guesses In any case, I'm interested in trying this investigation.


Rob

Hmmm,

In my own experience it seems like option (1). But I could be wrong as i am relying on just my current experience. This could change.

"Hmmm,

In my own experience it seems like option (1). But I could be wrong as i am relying on just my current experience. This could change.

"

Well, for what it's worth, you picked my favourite

"(1) As you do this investigation, the very arising of vedana alongside sensations phases in and out, so as sensations flow onward, you don't get a feeling-tone off of some of them at all. That is when you are experiencing bare sensation." -mdaf30

I'd be reluctant to create a concept of "bare sensation" that excludes vedana and is then privileged over sensations that do include vedana. My understanding is that vedana is an essential aspect of every sensation. Sometimes you don't notice it or can't identify it. But, after all, that is part of what the "neutral" category is intended to cover.

It may even be all of what the neutral category is intended to cover. Bill H. used to say that he thought every perception of neutral was actually a kind of fork in the road or a fractal: if you continued to look, it would break down into pleasant or unpleasant... or neutral, in which case you weren't seeing it clearly and it would fork again.

But my main point here is to encourage everyone not to assume that the only time you are seeing clearly is when you don't notice vedana. You could actually make the opposite case (i.e., that you are only seeing clearly when you *do* notice vedana), but I personally wouldn't make either case. In fact, there is also a situation where it makes no sense to talk about either subject or objects and therefore the four foundations of mindfulness have no relevance. But the real takeaway here, IMHO, is to avoid privileging any situation over any other. In order to privilege one situation, we would have to arbitrarily choose a place to stand relative to some other place. Like carving out a particular place in the middle of outer space and calling it home. "Everything revolves around this Earth," as in ancient astronomy. But even then, that position would be relative to what? Everything else is moving too.

Equilibrium is movement.

I'd like to know how anyone can ever think they've found truly bare sensation, a solid "home" or whatever you might call it. How would you know? Every sensation is mediated. Mind is always part of the process, doing whatever it does, noticed or not. And in the end, I guess I don't see why finding some "home" called bare sensation matters. The point, it seems to me, is to be present for whatever arises, whatever its source.

Am I missing something?

I would like to thank everyone for their input as this clarifies a lot! I've been applying these concepts to my practice and I am noticing things differently knowing what to look for. However I am still confused about what I mentioned in the opening post about switching between knowing and the sensation when focusing on an energy blockage to make it pulse. Or should I just purely focus on it and observe it?

I apologize for being asleep at the wheel. I responded to some of the later posts on this thread without reading the entire thread. There are some potentially damaging misconceptions here, so let me see if I can clarify.

"How would I alternate between the two (to cause the pulsations in bodily sensations and eventual dissolutions)?"-dudeitseddy

The vipassana instructions are very specific. If you follow them, you will make progress. If not, the warranty is void, so to speak. It's possible to waste an enormous amount of time by cooking up your own recipe. You must never *cause* anything. Your job is simply to observe. If it pulses, it pulses. If it doesn't pulse, it doesn't pulse. Either way, you watch without manipulation.

"If I'm aware of a sensation... is that really the sensation or the mental thought of the sensation?"-betawave

It's a meaningless distinction. Everything you experience comes in through one of the six sense doors, viz, seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, and thinking. None of them is more important or real than any other. *Everything* you experience comes in via these sense doors. If you are imagining that you are perceiving a knower, you are really just compounding some combination of these six sensory impressions together to create a mirage. You cannot know the knower.

The reason we do 2nd gear practices, which are ostensibly intended to "dwell as the knower" is to find out this very thing: there is no knower that can be experienced. With regard to vipassana, it is much simpler than we might like to make it. All you have to do is notice (and preferably note aloud) the experience as it comes up. Trying to separate knower and known is an exercise in futility and does not lead to wisdom. In other words, it's just idle speculation.

"
I'd like to know how anyone can ever think they've found truly bare sensation, a solid "home" or whatever you might call it. How would you know? Every sensation is mediated. Mind is always part of the process, doing whatever it does, noticed or not.

"

This is totally true - but I also think that it is most useful to think through this at more advanced practice than many people are at. For practical purposes, many folks starting out are trying to see if there is anything that is experienced that isn't a byproduct of the sensations. Of course the sensations are experienced mentally, but it is good to see the difference between the sensation as it first comes up (in the mind) and what happens directly after that, which is a a lot of interpretation and business. Once someone can see the first flush of a sensation and distinguish it from the interpreting that follows, that is the answer to this original question (I think).

What you're pointing at though is a deeper truth that I am just beginning to pull together for myself, which is that even though there is the sensation and all that follows, all of it is essentially the same. That there is this single taste to it all that is more profound than what we first learn to tease apart. (I could totally be over-interpreting what you are saying - but knowing the depth of your practice, I suspect that there is a very profound truth here).

" "

Hadn´t thought about neutral vedana like that Kenneth. Perhaps what is being observed is the same sensation but being read at different times with different tones. Hmmm, more to invesitagate. I am very open to being wrong.

But my intention when observing all of what I´ve mentioned is NOT to find some ¨home¨or place to rest or whatever. It is to show the mind the 3 C´s in even the experience of the vedana and perception aggregates. This allows for the mind to stop identifying with it as soemthing to hold onto. It is a means to be able to be present in the moment without suffering the stress of tanha. Whenever there is this holding of the sensation and its tone in a certain way, either with aversion or craving, there is stress in my experience.

I am not ok with stress. I wish to end stress. I don´t wish to be ok with stress but to transcend it. The end of stress is what the Buddha spoke of , no? I can see that at times I may be very present with what is arising but due to ignorance of what I am doing, stress is still arsing.

Being present needs to be accompanied with discernemnt, right? . I wish to end stress and seeing what is casuing stress is what Im exploring in order to do just that. And as far as my current subject to change experience is showing me, it is the way the mind holds sensations depending on their tone. The idea is not to stop vedana and dwell with just bare sensations as has been insinuated but to show the mind that all the aggregates are anicca, anatta and dukkha. And thus dispassion gows within for each of them, and with this dispassion a releasing and reduction of the tendency to ¨hold¨ expereince with aversion and craving. Vedana and the other aggregates cant be stopped from arsing but I think the magic trick they play on the mind can be seen through with continued discernemnt. This seems to be what is slowly developing in my current day to day experience.

My opinion is subject to change.

I just wanted to say that I think there is a whole lot of valuable information/instruction in this thread. Thanks, everyone, for contributing such thoughtful posts.

Jackson

" You must never *cause* anything. Your job is simply to observe. If it pulses, it pulses. If it doesn't pulse, it doesn't pulse. Either way, you watch without manipulation.

"If I'm aware of a sensation... is that really the sensation or the mental thought of the sensation?"-betawave

It's a meaningless distinction.

With regard to vipassana, it is much simpler than we might like to make it. All you have to do is notice (and preferably note aloud) the experience as it comes up. Trying to separate knower and known is an exercise in futility and does not lead to wisdom. In other words, it's just idle speculation."

Kenneth, this is a great post and could probably save new yogis years of needless struggle. I repeated what seemed to be the heart of it.

"I am not ok with stress."-NH

Notice that this is a loop. Your aversion to stress is causing more stress. "I" am "not ok" with stress. In other words, "I" have an opinion about it. But since "I" am a thought, all I am doing is perpetuating that thought every time I interject "myself" into the situation.

Try being more simple with it. Instead of investigating each sensation for the 3Cs, simply notice each sensation as it is. Let it be. If there is stress, accept it. If there is truth to the idea that everything is impermanent, not-self, and unsatisfactory, the mind will see this without the intervening thought. But to assume the 3Cs in advance and then try to see everything through that lens is just adding an unnecessary layer of complexity.

"I don´t wish to be ok with stress but to transcend it."-NH

The "I" that wants to transcend this experience is the problem. It's like sending the chief of police to catch an arsonist when the chief of police is himself the arsonist. The criminal will never be caught. As long as "I" need things to be other than they are in this moment, something extra is being added, creating an infinite loop.

"The end of stress is what the Buddha spoke of, no?"-NH

I see that you are translating "dukkha" as "stress." That is fine, as long as we don't then make the leap that everything that is meant by "stress" in English is exactly what is meant by the Pali word "dukkha." That would not be accurate.

"I can see that at times I may be very present with what is arising but due to ignorance of what I am doing, stress is still arising."-NH

When you are truly present, there is no dukkha. Be careful not to confound unpleasantness with dukkha. Let it be as it is and trust that the Buddha's practice works.

KF: Notice that this is a loop. Your aversion to stress is causing more stress. "I" am "not ok" with stress. In other words, "I" have an opinion about it. But since "I" am a thought, all I am doing is perpetuating that thought every time I interject "myself" into the situation.

Try being more simple with it. Instead of investigating each sensation for the 3Cs, simply notice each sensation as it is. Let it be. If there is stress, accept it. If there is truth to the idea that everything is impermanent, not-self, and unsatisfactory, the mind will see this without the intervening thought. But to assume the 3Cs in advance and then try to see everything through that lens is just adding an unnecessary layer of complexity. END QUOTE

NICK: Thanks Kenneth. I am aware that what you mention creates a loop. I am very familiar with it and have found letting that go very freeing in the past month. This does not mean I walk around with the constant thought "I" want out of dukkha (I'll stick to using this word from now on !". Maybe talking without using the word "I" would not have conveyed this idea of the loop. The goal is to end dukkha. That has not changed.

If being present means ending suffering, then so be it. But to be present can be pretty difficult for some and at times we need to use tools to stay present like noting or for me currently, paying attention to the three C's (which have already become evident in one's experience).

Continued from above...

When I talk of paying attention to the 3 C's, they are evident already for me. I am not looking for them. I am paying attention to them as they can be clearly seen. But I can also just pay attention to a sensation and not be aware of any of the 3 C's. Or I can shift the mind to pay attention to their vanishing, or the way they arise without help or the fact that these two characteristics are cause for suffering when things are taken as self, mine or permanent.

By paying attention to them, something positive occurs in my continued experience. The mind stops grasping and holding phenomena with aversion and craving. Yes, dukkha does not arise in those moemnts of non-grasping. Isn't this a good thing?

I would personally avoid looking for the 3 C's in phenomena if they haven't yet been seen. Like you say, Kenneth, they will show themselves eventually naturally. I agree. But when they are seen, in my experience, paying close attention to them does something for me. It stops the mind latching on to pleasant and unpleasant phenomena like it used to. Then and only then dukkha seems absent for me. I see the 3 C's as a way to generate dispassion for the aggregates. I thought this was what the Buddha talked about. Seems to be working for me as of late.

Thanks for the pointers, Kenneth.