Internal / External - significance and meaning

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by pegembara »

Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:29 am
pegembara wrote: Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:27 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:56 am

I could, for example, stand by the sea with my eyes closed, and feel the light pressure of wind on my face - but only if the wind is actually blowing!
That would be felt as "external" only if one has a mental image of being embodied. Likewise for "internal" winds. Without that image there is no inner or outer or maybe it's all "inner". It's all experienced here as simply wind property.
Sure, it's all wind property, but it seems the distinction between between internal and external is valid, based on where the wind property is actually felt - is it felt as pressure on your skin ( external ), or as the movement of your chest/abdomen ( internal )?

In any case the internal/external distinction is made in the suttas, and presumably there is a reason for that. There is also the distinction between internal and external sense bases, materiality/mentality, and the distinction between the form aggregate and the formless aggregates, and so on.

Point is that skin is a mental image built up through thinking. If one stop putting names to things like skin, chest or abdomen the distinction of ext/internal goes away. Just wind property and not "Wind on my face". or even "Where am I feeling this wind?"

Even space is conceptualised as internal/external until one reaches pure consciousness. Consciousness as int/external makes no sense.
"And what is the space property? The space property may be either internal or external. What is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property.
"There remains only consciousness: pure & bright. What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.'
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by Circle5 »

pegembara wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:52 am

Point is that skin is a mental image built up through thinking. If one stop putting names to things like skin, chest or abdomen the distinction of ext/internal goes away. Just wind property and not "Wind on my face". or even "Where am I feeling this wind?"

Even space is conceptualised as internal/external until one reaches pure consciousness. Consciousness as int/external makes no sense.
How about the consciousness of other people ? There exists your consciousness (internal) and the consciousness of other people (external). Voala, the distinction makes sense.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by pegembara »

Circle5 wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:57 am
pegembara wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:52 am

Point is that skin is a mental image built up through thinking. If one stop putting names to things like skin, chest or abdomen the distinction of ext/internal goes away. Just wind property and not "Wind on my face". or even "Where am I feeling this wind?"

Even space is conceptualised as internal/external until one reaches pure consciousness. Consciousness as int/external makes no sense.
How about the consciousness of other people ? There exists your consciousness (internal) and the consciousness of other people (external). Voala, the distinction makes sense.
That requires thinking. How are "they" feeling, thinking etc? One stops viewing thoughts as just thoughts as directly experienced.

Of course the distinction makes sense if you think about it.
Thus he lives contemplating mental objects in mental objects internally, or he lives contemplating mental objects in mental objects externally, or he lives contemplating mental objects in mental objects internally and externally. He lives contemplating origination factors in mental objects, or he lives contemplating dissolution factors in mental objects, or he lives contemplating origination-and-dissolution factors in mental objects.
What happens when thinking stops or thoughts are viewed as just thinking without paying attention to their contents?
Or his mindfulness is established with the thought, "Mental objects exist," to the extent necessary just for knowledge and mindfulness, and he lives detached, and clings to nothing in the world.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10163
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by Spiny Norman »

pegembara wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:52 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:29 am
pegembara wrote: Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:27 am

That would be felt as "external" only if one has a mental image of being embodied. Likewise for "internal" winds. Without that image there is no inner or outer or maybe it's all "inner". It's all experienced here as simply wind property.
Sure, it's all wind property, but it seems the distinction between between internal and external is valid, based on where the wind property is actually felt - is it felt as pressure on your skin ( external ), or as the movement of your chest/abdomen ( internal )?

In any case the internal/external distinction is made in the suttas, and presumably there is a reason for that. There is also the distinction between internal and external sense bases, materiality/mentality, and the distinction between the form aggregate and the formless aggregates, and so on.

Point is that skin is a mental image built up through thinking. If one stop putting names to things like skin, chest or abdomen the distinction of ext/internal goes away. Just wind property and not "Wind on my face". or even "Where am I feeling this wind?"
But why would you want the external/internal distinction to go away? It doesn't seem very practical. For example I used to sail dinghies, and it was quite important to know where I was feeling the wind!

I still think that that the external/internal distinction is in the suttas for a reason, and that is to do with investigation ( dhamma vicaya ). I still think the "problem" is not the distinction itself, but self-view, the tendency to appropriate, to delight in the property, to conceive about the property as it relates to "me" and "mine". So for example if I was sailing in a race, and I got annoyed because the wind dropped and the boat slowed down.

“He perceives air as air. Having perceived air as air, he conceives himself as air, he conceives himself in air, he conceives himself apart from air, he conceives air to be ‘mine,’ he delights in air. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say."
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn1
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by Circle5 »

pegembara wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:37 am
That requires thinking. How are "they" feeling, thinking etc? One stops viewing thoughts as just thoughts as directly experienced.
Doesn't that require thinking too ? One who is mentally retarded or a baby will not "view thoughts as directly experienced". Interpreting information about both internal and the external requires thinking. It is false to claim things internal are "directly experienced" without the use of thinking, or that thinking about things internal is somehow different than thinking about things external.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by ToVincent »

Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:27 am But why would you want the external/internal distinction to go away?
Because he is wise (SN 12.19).

It is not so much a question of "letting it go away", the way you put it; but how the āyatana yields a sense-consciousness.(not the physical eye, and the sight ability parts of the āyatana - but its sensory experience on the field, per se).
It's all about the nature and the intensity of the "sensory experience". Not about the physical (physics) part of it.

How the wise man, who has lived his sensory experiences like a fool, becomes wise?
By being mindful (not letting bad khandhas in) - by not grasping at the attributes (nimitta) - and by restraining the indriya.
From the stilling of the synergy (between the external āyatana and the internal āyatana), comes the relinquishing of all acquisitions (sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo) (AN 3.32), and the destruction of craving - of which the 18 external rovings are summarized by:
"I am; I may be; may I be; I shall be - (whatever) - because of this". (AN 4.199).
The "mine" part.

Now, as usual, these constraints are going to be quickly swept under the attractive rug of "bare attention" (viz. a "bare attention" devoid of the true meaning of mindfulness; of the avoidance of grasping at the attributes; and of any restraint of the indriyāni).
Or maybe this is going to be called once more, ... "preaching".

Have you noticed, you readers, how the restraint of the indriyāni is so taboo on practically all buddhist forums?
As soon as you say that, there is red-herring flowing from all sides.
Marvelous!

------

Therefore, I don't think that vicaya has much to do with the external and the internal, (if marginally, when there is synergy between ext. & int. āyatanāni).
But much more with the synergies between the components of a dhamma (khandhas, etc.).

Again and again; paṭiccasamipāda has much to do with Saṃ (collectively, jointly, synergetically) and Vi (apart, asunder).

Ānāpānasati is, for instance, the buliding of a dhamma, through the synergies of the body, feeling, etc. And the realization (consciousness/vi-ññāṇā/vi-jñana) of the "saṃ"; but particularly of the "vi" nature of this dhamma.

The arising (the synergetical flow) of the Saṃ ; and the fading (the flow apart) of the Vi (apart, asunder). The Saṃ and the Vi of the dhamma.

Consciousness being the particular "realization" of the "vi" nature of dhamma (vi-jñana) - begs indirectly, so to speak, for an incessant necessity to be maintained; so as to reanact a (new) Saṃ.
And that does not have much to do with the ext./int.
It has much more to do with the maintenance and establishing of consciousness process.
https://justpaste.it/16943 & https://justpaste.it/105jn
and its longing for (sensory) existence.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by Circle5 »

ToVincent wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:40 pm By being mindful (not letting bad khandhas in) - by not grasping at the attributes (nimitta) - and by restraining the indriya.
From the stilling of the synergy (between the external āyatana and the internal āyatana), comes the relinquishing of all acquisitions (sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo) (AN 3.32), and the destruction of craving - of which the 18 external rovings are summarized by:
"I am; I may be; may I be; I shall be - (whatever) - because of this". (AN 4.199).
The "mine" part.

Now, as usual, these constraints are going to be quickly swept under the attractive rug of "bare attention" (viz. a "bare attention" devoid of the true meaning of mindfulness; of the avoidance of grasping at the attributes; and of any restraint of the indriyāni).
Or maybe this is going to be called once more, ... "preaching".

Have you noticed, you readers, how the restraint of the indriyāni is so taboo on practically all buddhist forums?
As soon as you say that, there is red-herring flowing from all sides.
Marvelous!
:goodpost: That’s exactly the point of mindfulness in the first place. Most understand it as bare attention for the sake of developing bare attention like one would develop a good tendency, or develop muscle at the gym. And maybe this is why some have a trouble understanding why listening to the dhamma is considered mindfulness by the Buddha.

The way I understand mindfulness, it is like staying in a tall tower and seeing everything below. For example when one is walking his mind might go off towards thoughts that come to ones mind, or be led away by signs of things (for example by seeing a particular place, starting to remember memories from it an daydream etc.). Or for example one might be reading something on the internet, then get cought up in reading or doing something and then get cought up in that and be led ashtray, forgetting he was supposed to work or do something else or simply use his minutes more productively. When one is sitting in the tall tower of mindfulness, he is seeing all things and remembering what he is supposed to do, remembering his interest and so push away these things that drag him to the side. “Mindfulness” actually comes from “to remember”. These are gross examples but things go down to much more subtle levels, the second level where it gets to "investigation of states".

When on is mindful, he is keeping himself in the high tower and pushing these things to the side. When one is doing bare attention, he is not really in the high tower and not doing what a person sitting in a high tower would do. One can much more easily get dragged to the side in such a state and maybe even keep doing this bare attention a little when being already dragged to the side, not remembering what he is supposed to do.

The reason why paying attention to the body is required is for helping one stay in this tall tower. If one is paying attention to thoughts that come up to ones mind or random things, he will fall down from the high tower much more easily then when having walking or breathing as an anchor. But the bare-attention camp believe the whole point is to pay attention to the body or breath and stay as focused on that as possible, like a hammer in look of a nail, not understanding the whole point of that is just to help one stay in the high tower.

Those who do not agree fill free to contradict me, but the way I understand minfulness it is sitting in this high tower and remembering to do what one planned to do, or judging every moment what is in ones best interest, and deciding weather to do it or not. For example one might not know if it is productive to give attention to a particular sign/aspect of a thing or to another sign/aspect of a thing and he might decide in that moment what to do. This is how mindfulness is developing the second factor: investigation of states.

Note: The best way to practice this is when walking alone. It will be 20 times more effective than in day to day life or when walking with somebody else and talking.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10163
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by Spiny Norman »

ToVincent wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:40 pm Now, as usual, these constraints are going to be quickly swept under the attractive rug of "bare attention" (viz. a "bare attention" devoid of the true meaning of mindfulness; of the avoidance of grasping at the attributes; and of any restraint of the indriyāni).
Or maybe this is going to be called once more, ... "preaching".
In this case it is also a :strawman:
Here is a response I made to you in another thread recently:
"Mindfulness certainly includes that active role of guarding the senses, moderating Right Effort, acting mindfully, and so on. I think though what is being discussed here is a particular approach to practice, including "bare attention"."

It would be helpful if you could present a clear and succinct summary of your interpretation in a new thread.

Meanwhile, :focus:

Could you provide a clear and succinct response to the question I posed above: "But why would you want the external/internal distinction to go away?" From what I can gather about your approach, I would have thought this is a useful distinction to be aware of.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by pegembara »

Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:27 am
pegembara wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:52 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:29 am

Sure, it's all wind property, but it seems the distinction between between internal and external is valid, based on where the wind property is actually felt - is it felt as pressure on your skin ( external ), or as the movement of your chest/abdomen ( internal )?

In any case the internal/external distinction is made in the suttas, and presumably there is a reason for that. There is also the distinction between internal and external sense bases, materiality/mentality, and the distinction between the form aggregate and the formless aggregates, and so on.

Point is that skin is a mental image built up through thinking. If one stop putting names to things like skin, chest or abdomen the distinction of ext/internal goes away. Just wind property and not "Wind on my face". or even "Where am I feeling this wind?"
But why would you want the external/internal distinction to go away? It doesn't seem very practical. For example I used to sail dinghies, and it was quite important to know where I was feeling the wind!

I still think that that the external/internal distinction is in the suttas for a reason, and that is to do with investigation ( dhamma vicaya ). I still think the "problem" is not the distinction itself, but self-view, the tendency to appropriate, to delight in the property, to conceive about the property as it relates to "me" and "mine". So for example if I was sailing in a race, and I got annoyed because the wind dropped and the boat slowed down.

“He perceives air as air. Having perceived air as air, he conceives himself as air, he conceives himself in air, he conceives himself apart from air, he conceives air to be ‘mine,’ he delights in air. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say."
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn1
That tendency to appropriate, to delight in the property, to conceive about the property as it relates to "me" and "mine" is the problem. That comes from conceiving a self. When one stops such conceivings, the isn't an int/external relative to self.

One conceives self in air or apart from air or self as air. Self-view isn't all bad of course - but that tendency suggests that one hasn't fully understood.
Having perceived the sensed as the sensed, he conceives himself as the sensed, he conceives himself in the sensed, he conceives himself apart from the sensed, he conceives the sensed to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the sensed. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by pegembara »

Circle5 wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:57 am
pegembara wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:37 am
That requires thinking. How are "they" feeling, thinking etc? One stops viewing thoughts as just thoughts as directly experienced.
Doesn't that require thinking too ? One who is mentally retarded or a baby will not "view thoughts as directly experienced". Interpreting information about both internal and the external requires thinking. It is false to claim things internal are "directly experienced" without the use of thinking, or that thinking about things internal is somehow different than thinking about things external.

Thinking about things internal is not different than thinking about things external. The underlined part requires thinking and prior learning.
"And what is the liquid property? The liquid property may be either internal or external. What is the internal liquid property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's liquid, watery, & sustained: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's liquid, watery, & sustained: This is called the internal liquid property. Now both the internal liquid property & the external liquid property are simply liquid property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the liquid property and makes the liquid property fade from the mind.
Babies can directly experience stomach winds without thinking. Note - nobody is suggesting that babies are meditating.
"And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the intestines, winds that course through the body, in-and-out breathing, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the internal wind property & the external wind property are simply [directly experienced as] wind property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes the wind property fade from the mind.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10163
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by Spiny Norman »

pegembara wrote: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 am That tendency to appropriate, to delight in the property, to conceive about the property as it relates to "me" and "mine" is the problem. That comes from conceiving a self. When one stops such conceivings, the isn't an int/external relative to self.
So why do you think the internal/external distinction is made in the suttas? Why draw attention to the distinction if it is illusory?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by chownah »

Spiny Norman wrote: Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:18 am So why do you think the internal/external distinction is made in the suttas? Why draw attention to the distinction if it is illusory?
Because int/ext is a view held by people which is instrumental in constructing the delusional self.....so it is discussed in a way which may help some people to see how the delusinal self is supported by the concept of int/ext.......not well expressed but I hope you get the idea.
chownah
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by ToVincent »

Spiny Norman wrote: Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:15 amCould you provide a clear and succinct response to the question I posed above: "But why would you want the external/internal distinction to go away?" From what I can gather about your approach, I would have thought this is a useful distinction to be aware of.
My answer has not passed (twice) the TOS requirements.
Sorry I can't answer you properly.

Farewell.
Karuna.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings ToVincent,

True, ad hominem attacks and disruptive metadiscussion are a violation of the Terms of Service (2f & 2e, respectively).

If you can't respond to someone's question because you are restricted from resorting to ad hominem attacks and disruptive meta-discussion then that's rather unfortunate.

:focus:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Internal / External - significance and meaning

Post by Circle5 »

That tendency to appropriate, to delight in the property, to conceive about the property as it relates to "me" and "mine" is the problem. That comes from conceiving a self. When one stops such conceivings, the isn't an int/external relative to self.

One conceives self in air or apart from air or self as air. Self-view isn't all bad of course - but that tendency suggests that one hasn't fully understood.
A computer doesn't have a self. Yet, there are things that belong to the computer, things that make up the computer (metal, plastic, software, etc.). There are things internal and external to the computer.

Or for example there are things external to a planet. We call such things "alien". A planet doesn't have a self.
Because int/ext is a view held by people which is instrumental in constructing the delusional self.....so it is discussed in a way which may help some people to see how the delusinal self is supported by the concept of int/ext.......not well expressed but I hope you get the idea.
The idea of not-self is not to be destroyed through some sort of saying it is part of a whole, that it's like a drop of water into the ocean, etc. Those are simplistic ideas present in many religions or mahayana sects that do not lead to understanding of no self. The understanding of no-self has to do with other things, with seeing things in a different way. It's subtle, hard to grasp, it takes looking from some specific angles and understanding how the aggregates work. Simplistic ideas of being a drop in the ocean or "all is the same" monism present in many religions will not make one understand the nonexistence of a self.
Post Reply