I’m pretty sure it is the same, though I’m not sure if dissolving the distinction matters as much as avoiding a perspective whereby such distinctions can continue to reinforce self-view (sakkāya-ditthi). I think mindfulness is about imposing limits – by establishing a more encompassing position, the subject can’t leave the confines, or rather, it cannot be assumed outside or beyond. In its simplest form, “While doing [such and such], they know ‘I am doing [such and such]’” (very similar to your concept of “overlay”). The “I” is repeatedly reintroduced, exposed as being on the level of manifestation. With that, the distinction will grow to be less significant. Of course there will always be a particularly valid difference between the body and that which is not the body, but it will no longer imply a boundary between Self and matter, between any one aggregate (or more) and the others. Even for the arahat, it would seem things continue to manifest, but not only is the right order of things known, no aspect can arise with the significance of being mine or me.Dinsdale wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:01 amI think I'm asking about the difference between dissolving the distinction between internal and external (non-dualism), and not regarding either of these as "me" and "mine" (anatta).
Do you see these as the same experience, or as different? Or does one follow from the other?
That is the critical issue for the non-ariya: things arise with significance in place. The order is established through the repeated assumption that it is inherently “like that”. For someone who has no exposure to Dhamma, there is essentially no option – the significance is accepted (“remains holding”):
”SN 22.5” wrote:… Here, bhikkhus, one seeks delight, one welcomes, one remains holding. And what is it that one seeks delight in, what does one welcome, to what does one remain holding? One seeks delight in form, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As a consequence of this, delight arises. Delight in form is clinging. With one’s clinging as condition, existence comes to be; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
“One seeks delight in feeling … in perception … in volitional formations … in consciousness, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As a consequence of this, delight arises…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.