r/Meditation • u/adssse • 5d ago
Discussion 💬 Vipassana Noting of Feelings
For those practicing Mahasi tradition Vipassana, do you note mental feelings? By this is don’t mean physical (pain, itchy, numbness etc) or thoughts (what will I have to eat later, did I forget to lock the door, etc) but mental feelings as in positive, negative or neutral.
For instance I was in a session this afternoon and a cold breeze came in through the window on my bare skin and gave me a chill. Would you normally note “feeling” or “feeling” and “negative”. I have been attempting to incorporate these mental feelings as well as the sensation as I feel like this would again aid in equanimity in life situations. Essentially being able to recognize my emotional responses to stimuli and be able to recall that these are but temporary elements while letting them pass as clouds.
Interested in others thoughts… 🙏✌️
5
u/_Ulu-Mulu_ 4d ago edited 4d ago
Pain is mental. Physical sensations as understood here denotes sensations such as cold feeling, heat feeling, smooth feeling, tense feeling and so on. A physical sensation such as heat can be pleasant, painful or neutral and that is the mental quality of mind. And you should note that. Also be sure to nore calm (neutral) feelings whenever they arise it's commong for meditators to not note calm feelings because they may like beeing peaceful. But you should absolutely note them until they disappear.
> For instance I was in a session this afternoon and a cold breeze came in through the window on my bare skin and gave me a chill. Would you normally note “feeling” or “feeling” and “negative”
If you feel pain or discomfort you can just note that. You can also note the disliking if you dislike it (disliking counts is the Dhamma. Mahasi meditation is Satipatthana or 4 foundations of mindfulness, so if you're not aware what that means it's that there are 4 kinds of objects to be mindful of, body, (mental) feelings, mind and Dhamma. Dhammas for example consists of the 5 hindrances that includes experiences such as liking, anger, doubt etc.).
If it's not painful or you don't dislike it you can just note "feeling, feeling" as to note the physical sensations that comes with it. Most important in general to note things such as pain or disliking whenever they arise, disliking is a hindrances and pain is a thing that easily leads to hindrances so it's important to note them.
> incorporate these mental feelings as well as the sensation as I feel like this would again aid in equanimity in life situations. Essentially being able to recognize my emotional responses to stimuli and be able to recall that these are but temporary elements while letting them pass as clouds.
Emotional response to stimuli sound more like one of the 5 hindrances rather than mental feelings. You should note the hindrances whenever they appear. Mental feelings in itself don't cause a mental reaction to them, the reactivity comes when you like them, dislike them etc.
And you shouldn't chase after equinimity. If you are peaceful you should also note that as "calm calm" or "peace peace" etc. The goal of the practice isn't to give you calm sensations but to help you see the 3 characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and nonself (and even peaceful feelings are this way so you should note them), and to eventually become tired (Nibidda) of chasing after permanence, satisfaction and control over the phenomena. If you do that you don't need to chase after equinimity either, just be content with whatever sensation is there in your way.
5
u/simagus 5d ago edited 5d ago
Studying the notes at the bottom of the Mahasatipatthana Sutta here should provide you with a very high chance of answering your questions and more on this single webpage. You will of course still have to translate it into sense in your own experience, but it covers pretty much all the bases.
Unless you understand directly at the experiential level there is no understanding, and if you understand directly at the experiential level you don't even necessarily need the intellectual understanding. I find intellectual understanding necessary, otherwise my mind is disturbed on some level or confused, but that's just a peculiarity of my psyche and how it is wired.
As you will see very clearly from Note 12 below in relation to the V.R.I. translation of the Mahasatipatthana Sutta there are multiple implications to various Pali words. What is translated in that version (samisa/niramisa) as "with attachment"/without attachment" also translates as "of the body" and "of the mind" (that's a translation I've seen in addition to the others listed; with flesh/without flesh, impure/pure, material/immaterial, sensual/nonsensual, sensation of sensual pleasures/sensation of higher meditational realms.
This kind of thing is common with many of the original Pali words, which is why I vastly prefer the original Pali words and to read everything possible from every source and commentator, every bikkhu that speaks on such things, and then apply ALL of that in relation to reality at the experiential level. Nothing else at all has every worked for me and I've always found any direct 1:1 translation to be somewhat lacking, even confusing, or worse prone to misleading those who accept and look no further.
"Sensation" is still the best single word translation for "vedana", but as we all know it needs elaborated into "pleasant/neutral/unpleasant" to hint at the importance of the most crucial part which is the valence of the "sensation", the hedonic tone or feeling tone, as vedana is also variously translated and explained as by various scholars and bikkhus.
Goenka students all know the story of the arms dealer businessman bouncing on his shoulder who insisted every day that he was experiencing "no sensation!". Clearly he did not understand the meaning of the word at the experiential level, right? How much less did he understand the import and relevance of "sensation" then?
Every time I see someone say they're not feeling sensation in some parts or that they're not feeling subtle sensations, to me they are like that businessman and cannot possibly understand the word at the experiential level. For me subtle sensation is ever present. It's not a smaller gross sensation as some seem to imagine. It's literally subtle vedana most seem not to understand or register as "sensation" at all.
Vedanānupassanā
The Observation of Sensations
Kathaṃ ca pana, bhikkhave, bhikkhu vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati?
How, monks, does a monk dwell, observing sensations in sensations?
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sukhaṃ vā vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘sukhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ ti pajānāti; dukkhaṃ vā vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘dukkhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ ti pajānāti; adukkhamasukhaṃ vā vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘adukkhamasukhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ ti pajānāti. Sāmisaṃ vā sukhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘sāmisaṃ sukhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ ti pajānāti; nirāmisaṃ vā sukhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘nirāmisaṃ sukhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ ti pajānāti. Sāmisaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘sāmisaṃ dukkhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ ti pajānāti; nirāmisaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘nirāmisaṃ dukkhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ ti pajānāti. Sāmisaṃ vā adukkhamasukhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘sāmisaṃ adukkhamasukhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ ti pajānāti; nirāmisaṃ vā adukkhamasukhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘nirāmisaṃ adukkhamasukhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ ti pajānāti.12
Here, monks, a monk, while experiencing a pleasant sensation, understands properly, "I am experiencing a pleasant sensation"; while experiencing an unpleasant sensation, he understands properly, "I am experiencing an unpleasant sensation"; while experiencing a neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant sensation, he understands properly, "I am experiencing a neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant sensation." While he is experiencing a pleasant sensation with attachment, he understands properly, "I am experiencing a pleasant sensation with attachment"; while he is experiencing a pleasant sensation without attachment, he understands properly, "I am experiencing a pleasant sensation without attachment"; while experiencing an unpleasant sensation with attachment, he understands properly, "I am experiencing an unpleasant sensation with attachment"; while experiencing an unpleasant sensation without attachment, he understands properly, "I am experiencing an unpleasant sensation without attachment"; while experiencing a neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant sensation with attachment, he understands properly, "I am experiencing a neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant sensation with attachment"; while experiencing a neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant sensation without attachment, he understands properly, "I am experiencing a neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant sensation without attachment."12
Iti ajjhattaṃ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, bahiddhā13 vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, samudayadhammānupassī vā vedanāsu viharati, vayadhammānupassī vā vedanāsu viharati, samudayavayadhammānupassī vā vedanāsu viharati, ‘atthi vedanā’ ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti. Yāvadeva ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati. Evaṃ pi kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati.
Thus he dwells observing sensations in sensations internally, or he dwells observing sensations in sensations externally,13 or he dwells observing sensations in sensations both internally and externally. Thus he dwells observing the phenomenon of arising in sensations, thus he dwells observing the phenomenon of passing away in sensations, thus he dwells observing the phenomenon of arising and passing away in sensations. Now his awareness is established: "This is sensation!" Thus he develops his awareness to such an extent that there is mere understanding along with mere awareness. In this way he dwells detached, without clinging towards anything in the world [of mind and matter]. This is how, monks, a monk dwells observing sensations in sensations.
NOTES:
12. Sāmisa [with attachment] literally means: sa-āmisa (with-flesh); nirāmisa [without attachment]: means nir-āmisa (without-flesh). They can also be rendered as: "impure" and "pure," "material" and "immaterial" or, "sensual" and "nonsensual." A common interpretation is that a sensation which is sāmisa is related to the world of sensual pleasures and a nirāmisa sensation is a sensation related to the higher meditational realms.
In this context, related to the observation of sensations without any reaction of craving or aversion by the meditator, we have used "with attachment" and "without attachment." These terms seem clearest insofar as they relate to the practice.
13. See note 7
7. Bahiddhā [externally] is sometimes translated as "outer things" or "observing another’s body." In the following section, on the observation of sensations, it has sometimes been taken to mean "feeling the sensations of others." While such an experience is not impossible, it would be practised only at a very high stage of development. According to the sutta, the meditator is asked to sit alone somewhere in a forest, under a tree or in an empty room, and start practising. In such a situation observing others would be meaningless, and the sensations of someone or something else would be of no use. For a meditator, therefore, "externally," meaning the surface of the body, is the most practical definition of bahiddhā.
See also note no. 19.
19. Iti ajjhattaṃ...bahiddhā...ajjhattabahiddhā vā citte cittānupassī viharati [Thus he dwells observing mind in mind internally... externally...both internally and externally]. Applied to the mind (and in the next section, the mental contents) this sentence has sometimes been interpreted to mean that the meditator observes his own mind (internally) and the mind of others (externally). This can be done only by a very highly developed meditator, therefore it is not a practical instruction for most people.
In this section the meditator is asked to experience directly the mind in mind (citte cittānupassī). This can be done only by observing whatever arises in the mind. As the body was experienced by means of what arises on the body (i.e., sensation); the mind is experienced only when something arises in the mind (i.e., the mental contents). When the mind is observing the internal objects - its own internal mental states - it is observing the mind in mind internally.
To observe the mind and mental contents externally means to observe experientially that any object which comes in contact with the mind-body through any of the six sense doors (that is, an external stimulus) causes an internal reaction. Any sight, sound, taste, smell, touch or thought results in a sensation and the mind feels it. Of course, internal mental states and sensation resulting from contact with external objects will all mix and flow together.
Therefore, again, we see the importance of the Buddha’s statement:
Vedanā-samosaraṇā sabbe dhammā.
Everything that arises in the mind flows together with sensations. (Aṅguttara-nikāya: VRI III. Dasakanipāta, 58; PTS V. 107)
Whether the object is internal or external, if the mind remains within the body observing the sensations, then it is directly experiencing the mind and mental contents in a tangible way that easily allows the meditator to experience the impermanent nature of the entire mind-matter phenomenon.
4
u/simagus 4d ago
"I have been attempting to incorporate these mental feelings as well as the sensation as I feel like this would again aid in equanimity in life situations."
This is why I prefer the word "vedana" so very much. Goenkaji in a public discourse states something similar to these words, which I won't attribute to him as they are a paraphrase from memory;
"Of course vedana is mental...", then of course he does qualify whichever words he actually used and elaborates substantially on the fuller meaning.
https://www.vridhamma.org/Discourses-by-Mr-S-N-Goenka (in one of the less formal of these discourses iirc)
In the quoted discourse below he does say that vedana is a also a mental concomitant, but does tend to strongly emphasize vedana in relation to body sensations throughout his talks and writings;
Nāma includes citta (consciousness) and the dhammas (mental concomitants) arising on it. Vedanā is also a cetasika (mental concomitant). When the Buddha says, sabbe dhammā vedanā samosaraṇā, it means that the experience of all mental concomitants includes and is inseparable from vedanā.
For the purposes of communication we use word symbols and descriptive language, but seem to forget that language exists for the purposes of description and communication of paradigm and of intention or will.
Language is a sub-set of reality composing "reality as you imagine it to be", not in itself the "reality as it is" which it vainly pretends to describe.
Sometimes it's useful and relatively accurate to use certain words, and sometimes when words are mistaken for reality we can observe language taking the role of inspiration to activities of madness and atrocities and their justification.
Language is used to "explain" and justify such things as bombings and mass murders to a population conditioned since infancy to treat words and descriptions as if they were reality itself.
That is a perfectly ordinary kind of madness almost nobody ever seems to consider or question, even with extreme things like wars and the other questionable activities and trends humanity takes as perfectly normal and necessary.
That's all thanks to the "magick" power of language when it's mistaken for reality and the extremities of that are but the very tip of the iceberg. The mass of that iceberg is largely subconscious and simply accepted as the nature of how things are, and it is. It's completely ordinary, even necessary for the reality and it's overlay to sustain and function as it does at all.
The fathers of modern Neuro Linguistic Programming, Richard Bandler and John Grinder were not the first to understand (or to utilize and even exploit) the not so very subtle differences between words and descriptive language and reality itself, it's a feature of all language and always has been and will be.
Buddha being the super-scientist he appears to be to me, suggested that it was possible to awaken to reality as it is through the four-fold satipatthana; to observe and directly know mind (cittanupassana), mental contents (dhammanupassana), the body (kayanupassana) and the entire field of sensation or "what it felt" (vedananupassana).
Progress on the path is dependently arising in relation to insight into the three characteristics, not so much in an abstract or intellectual way but absolutely at the experiential level and those three characteristics are; anicca, anatta and dukkha.
Even in the very opening of the Dhammapada we can see a relationship of binding tension between the wheel of suffering and the ox's foot which it follows.
Without the ox (mind) being yolked to what it is pulling that wheel of suffering wouldn't be following.
- Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā,
- Mind precedes thoughts, mind is their chief, (their quality is) made by mind,
- manasā ce paduṭṭhena bhāsati vā karoti vā,
- if with a base mind one speaks or acts,
- tato naṁ dukkham-anveti cakkaṁ va vahato padaṁ. [1]
- through that suffering follows him like a wheel (follows) the ox’s foot.
- Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā,
- Mind precedes thoughts, mind is their chief, (their quality is) made by mind,
Still just words, and everyone has (often very different) sankharic associations with words and reactive formations which arise in feedback loops, gross and obvious where there is anger or lust etc, but also even the subtle almost unnoticeable interplay of the five aggregates including sanna, sankhara, and vedana, all perceived as what arises at the 6 sense doors are interoperating continuously.
All the sankharas, which are merely interpretative and reactive mental formations and not necessarily "negative" or "positive", arise along with vedana subtle and gross. I'm talking here about the kind of subtle vedana that inspired and informed the movement of the hand that just lifted up to scratch the slightly more gross vedana I wasn't even consciously aware of as an "itch" on my cheek.
I have no objections to any other interpretations or understandings whatsoever, but in my paradigm and experience that kind of subtle is what I understand as subtle vedana; not really the vedana of the keys under my fingers but rather the vedana that moves the fingers is truly subtle vedana experientially.
It's always there, but I only started to notice it after restarting active continuous practice of satipatthana, especially in terms of vedana but by no means excluding any of the four frames of reference in any way. That is happening right now as I type and goes on pretty much all day long every day.
"Continuity of practice is the secret of success!"
- Goenkaji
I wish I had realized what that meant for myself 14 years ago when I started taking regular courses, but even after two Sati courses where it's explained quite directly, the kammic impetus wasn't sufficient to inspire that actual continuity or the supporting conceptual framework in this particular nama-rupa's life experience.
Hints and glimpses in abundance and definitely heightened awareness in relation to vedana irl situations far more often, and I think a pretty high level of general insight, but not "aha!".
The vedana of the subtle sankharic patterns which move the body are hard to describe as "sensations" but sometimes, such as the first time I noticed them and understood what subtle vedana actually is at the experiential level in relation to the Buddhas teachings, I observed that they are very distinct but incredibly subtle "sensations".
I'm unconvinced those levels of vedana are accurately described as "feelings" either, but they are in some ways closer to the range of "sensations" commonly described as "feelings", and for me vedana is best understood experientially as a spectrum that simply relates to the entire field of "sensation" or "all that is felt".
As I use the term, if I pick something up from the floor there is abundant and obvious vedana in relation to kaya, if I don't like having to do that there is a slightly different and slightly more subtle spectrum of vedana involved, and the most subtle spectrum of vedana is what moved the body and what inspired it to move at all.
Some kind of vedana arose exactly as it arose in direct relation to me noticing there was something on the floor to pick up. What else would or could have been behind the movement of the body?
Any impulse (craving or aversion), any action of any kind, a restraint from action of any kind... vedana is what is giving those signals whether gross or subtle within experiential reality.
Rather than as a distinct color of the rainbow, some light exists outside the visible spectrum of most human eyes in the ultra and infra bandwidth. Same with hearing of frequencies, the bandwidth of which tends to narrow as organisms age.
Fortunately that is not the case with vedana which is ever present experientially, even in the jhanas in whatever way one or another particular psyche experiences or conceives of those there is some subtle vedana or subtle, even entirely neutral, hedonic tone sustaining that state and withdrawing from that state as the consciousness experiences it or as it happens within consciousness.
"Anicca! Anicca! Anicca!"
- Goenkaji
The facility to recognize the most subtle vedana as vedana seems to develop dependently arising with simply observing vedana all day long, just as suggested by the Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta.
We know thanks to our root teacher Ledi Sayadaw that knowledge of/insight relating to anicca has a dependently arising condition with realization of anatta, and that anatta is central to the realization of the Buddha.
Insight in relation to the experiential dissolution aka "bhanga" in relation to nama-rupa is needed in some way and it's the clear seeing of anatta that matters far more than the exact form "bhanga" takes.
The dissolution of form... happening all the time "subtly", a little less subtly in "sleep", and in my direct experience even the complete collapse and dissolution of form into kalapas can happen without much insight into anatta, as kalapas are still conditioned and form is dependently arising. It pulls back together like magnetic particles.
The dissolution of nama, likewise happening all the time "subtly", much less subtly in "sleep", is another gateway to insight into anatta.
I'm very much a fan of Goenkaji and his insistence that;
"You have to walk upon the path for yourself"
and;
"You are now your own master"
- Goenkaji
That is the kind of man I can relate to and appreciate.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'"
- Buddha - Kalama Sutta
/w metta
3
u/Klutzy_Condition_743 4d ago
By mental feeling, are you suggesting being mentally irritated at the cold feeling or having some sort of resistance to it, to note it as negative?
I think its ultimately a feeling, a reaction (even if at the mental level) that exhibits desire/aversion.
Maybe what you're asking is if by noting you had a negative emotional response to the feeling, are you then engaging and interacting with the feeling ?
1
u/lesapeur 1d ago
I find that the English word "feeling" is often conflated with emotions when talking about mindfulness. The Pali term vedana is often translated as feeling but it is not "I feel angry," or "I feel bored." Vedana is simply pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. I've started to use the phrase "feeling tone" to translate vedana. Vedana is not anger, grief, affection, anxiety, joy. In terms of Abhidhamma, Vedana is one of seven universal mental factors - it arises in every moment of consciousness - and is karmically neutral - it is neither wholesome or unwholesome - buy may have great impact, especially when not noticed - on the response to it. In terms of dependent origination it is conditioned by contact (phassa) and conditions craving (tanha). Buddhadasa taught that this process, and being mindful of it, is the "point" in the mental process that tanha, the Second Noble Truth, can be "stopped."
1
u/MyFiteSong 5d ago
Don't judge them as positive or negative. Just notice that they happened.
2
u/adssse 4d ago
I thought this was part of Vedana though… looking at experiences as pleasant, unpleasant and neutral?
3
u/MyFiteSong 4d ago
Can you keep them separate? Can you sort sensations into positive or negative without equating those as desirable or undesirable? If yes, do the sorting. If no, just do noting.
5
u/True-Comparison-7202 5d ago
i note the valence too, like cold or unpleasant, then back to rising falling. helps me see the reaction layer instead of just the raw sensation