Q&A - PERIPHERAL AWARENESS - by Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero, Hillside Hermitage, Sri Lanka 

Bhante, another question not especifically related to this topic. A moment ago I received a notification on RU-vid that one of my comments was answered. At first I felt intense elation because I rarely comment so I thought it was you answering my question, turns out it wasn't, but as of lately I've been kind of paranoid (in a good sense) with analyzing feelings to know whether they are rooted in wholesome or unwholesome. It's not deliberate, but since I started following your approach it's kind of becoming a habit, so when feelings arises, the context of investigation suddenly comes up with it. As much as I thought, I couldn't pin down whether or not such feeling was wholesome or unwholesome. At first it seemed like just a feeling of elation, nothing special, arisen on its own, but since sensuality can disguise itself as pleasurable feeling, it left me wondering if there was sensuality involved. If the pain/pressure was "not being answered" and the craving, perceived as being fulfilled by the possibility of having it answered produced the elation. I know that is a bit over the top but as you said, it starts like that until you get more experienced and familiarized. Of course, if you feel like correcting me, please, point out. Thank you again Bhante.

1. Practically speaking your intentions are your possibilities or vice versa. 2. Feeling of elation (or any feeling for that matter) is not unwholesome, but your attitude on account of it can be. Sensuality is not in pleasurable feeling, it is your welcoming, delighting in, accepting, and looking forward to that feeling, that sensuality is there.

@@HillsideHermitage Thank you Bhante, I guess there is still a lot of work in progress, I will rewatch some of your videos to further clarify these topics.

1. On the phenomenon of cittanimitta that is mentioned in the Suttas. 2. Yes, as a 'foreground', but not in a sense that one thing would entirely occupy the mind so that there is nothing else there (if that were the case, self awareness would be impossible). 3. Yes, hence the talk deals with awareness of them 'peripherally', so that they are not made into the foreground. 4. Yes, there is one focus and one background to the focus. Like a back of the flashlight shining light.

@@HillsideHermitage Greetings Ajahn much merits for the swift reply! To 1. Thanks will Google it. To 2. Why would it be impossible? A quick succession of arising and passing cittas can't do the job? To 3. If the mind has never been focused on those background processes at one point of a time how can one become aware of them? and if the mind was focused on them at that point they were not in the periphery but in the foreground, even if only for a split second. To 4. I understand that many things happen simultaneously in theory but in experience one thing at a time. But since the mind is very quick and the awareness of most too slow it may appear that one can be aware of two or more things at a time. Like multitasking but it is just switching back and forth. 1. Where in the 3 baskets is a support for the citta being able to be aware of two things at the same time? because in my experience it's always one single thing at a given time. But if the 3 baskets say clearly otherwise then it's highly likely that my eyesight is not sufficient yet. Much merits

You are very welcome. 1. You seem to conflate "attention" with "awareness". Sure, one cannot be attending to two things at the same time to the same extent. But one can certainly be AWARE of one's feelings, WHILE one is talking to someone else for example. So yes, in your experience, you can only ATTEND one single phenomenon at the time, which is why we encourage to develop the awareness of the origin of that very attention (Yoniso manasikara). Origin that CANNOT be attended, but only discerned through awareness of the peripheral. That's how the Buddha Vipassi discerned that if you look at nama-rupa it is determined by vinnana, and if you look at vinnana it is determined by nama-rupa. (DN 14). So by disowning one in that RELATIONSHIP of SIMULTANEOUS DEPENDENCE, the other one cannot remain standing (as mine). And he actually discerned this Paticcasamuppada principle BEFORE he was enlightened, while still a bodhisatta. Contemplating it fully resulted in his liberation after he remained dwelling on dicerning the manifestation of the five aggregates and the assumption (upadana) in regard to them. 2.No because no matter the SPEED of the succession, if it's a SUCCESSION it requires and EXTERNAL POINT of view. In other words you cannot see your experience as a "succession" because you are IT (and the only way to do so is to ASSUME an external point of view that would act as a non-changing-reference-point. Such thing cannot be experienced by oneself, but only assumed) 3. It's wrong to think of them as "processes", because that again requires a certain succession, a process IN TIME. Think of them as a unified CONTEXT to whatever you are presently attending and doing. That context is THERE, simultaneously present for as long as it is (it "endures"). Exactly. That's why if you try to 'focus' on them, they will become an OBJECT of your ATTENTION, and as such they don't partake in the simultaneously present phenomenon of a unifying context of your experience (i.e. "the background"). 4. See the #2

@@HillsideHermitage Greetings Ajahn Thank you again for your swift reply! Love this exchange! :) You are very welcome. 1. You seem to conflate "attention" with "awareness". >I do. Sure, one cannot be attending to two things at the same time to the same extent. >".. to the same extent" it sounds as despite saying "sure" you still have the view that it is possible to attend to two things at the same time to some extent at least right? But one can certainly be AWARE of one's feelings, WHILE one is talking to someone else for example. >Hearing, feeling, thinking and talking these are all different phenomena having become aware and maybe attended to each at different times NOT simultaneously. Without consciousness there is no hearing feeling thinking speaking taking place. One thing at one time with no contact taking place parallel. Consciousness is one of the factors which determines contact. So yes, in your experience, you can only ATTEND one single phenomenon at the time, which is why we encourage to develop the awareness of the origin of that very attention (Yoniso manasikara). >Now it is getting really interesting.. But you have lost me so I kindly have to ask you what you mean when you use the following words Origin that CANNOT be attended, >"Attended" what do you mean by that exactly but only discerned >"discerned" what do you mean by that through awareness >"awareness" what do you mean by THAT of the peripheral. That's how the Buddha Vipassi discerned that if you look at nama-rupa it is determined by vinnana, and if you look at vinnana it is determined by nama-rupa. (DN 14). >It is not stated that it was discerned through awareness of the peripheral. “Consciousness conditions mind-and-body.” And then the Bodhisatta Vipassi thought: “With what being present, does consciousness occur. What conditions consciousness?” And then, as a result of the wisdom born of profound consideration, the realisation dawned on him: “Mind-and-body conditions consciousness.” So by disowning one >... Through seeing its impermanent, unpleasant or impersonal nature right? in that RELATIONSHIP of SIMULTANEOUS DEPENDENCE, the other one cannot remain standing (as mine). And he actually discerned this Paticcasamuppada principle BEFORE he was enlightened, while still a bodhisatta. >So at that point of time he seems to have been a sotapanna. Contemplating it fully resulted in his liberation after he remained dwelling on dicerning the manifestation of the five aggregates and the assumption (upadana) in regard to them. >So it is through contemplating the rise and fall of the aggregates that he was freed from the asavas and not through the insight of RELATIONSHIP of SIMULTANEOUS Dependence. "Then, monks, at another time the Bodhisatta Vipassi dwelt contemplating the rise and fall of the five aggregates of clinging: “Such is the body, such its arising, such its passing away; such is feeling … ; such is perception … ; such are the mental formations … ; such is consciousness, such its arising, such its passing away.” And as he remained contemplating the rise and fall of the five aggregates of cinging, before long his mind was freed from the corruptions without remainder .’ 2. No because no matter the SPEED of the succession, if it's a SUCCESSION it requires and EXTERNAL POINT of view. >It does not. Succession can be discerned through remembrance in retrospect. Means a chain of succession happens and after you discern this was this and that, this happened after that and so on. To see that chain in live speed happening you need samadhi. In other words you cannot see your experience as a "succession" because you are IT (and the only way to do so is to ASSUME an external point of view that would act as a non-changing-reference-point. Such thing cannot be experienced by oneself, but only assumed) >commented above. 3. It's wrong to think of them as "processes", because that again requires a certain succession, a process IN TIME. Think of them as a unified CONTEXT to whatever you are presently attending and doing. That context is THERE, simultaneously present for as long as it is (it "endures"). >Chain of determined phenomena arising and passing is what i meant with processes which are not assumed but previously discerned, it is a remembrance. Exactly. That's why if you try to 'focus' on them, they will become an OBJECT of your ATTENTION, >So far I can follow.. and as such they don't partake in the simultaneously present phenomenon of a unifying context of your experience (i.e. "the background"). >.. Now you lost me. Could you please elaborate? Much merits!

@@HillsideHermitage Greetings Ajahn, One does not have options for text format here which would make reading longer quote-replies easier. Is there a forum or sth else you normally use for exchanges? I don't have or use social media like Facebook... I prefer public medium so others who have the same questions like me can also profit or step in and share. Much merits