Perception, Thought, and the Search for Self
Percepción, pensamiento y la búsqueda del yo
A question about the distinction between perception and thought leads into a discussion of Buddhist categories, the confusion of terminology across traditions, and the teaching that no self can be found in any form of experience.
Perception, Thought, and the Search for Self
A question about the distinction between perception and thought leads into a discussion of Buddhist categories, the confusion of terminology across traditions, and the teaching that no self can be found in any form of experience.
I'm curious. Could you elaborate on the difference between perception and thoughts?
Perception is what comes through the senses: what we hear, what we see, what we smell. You could also distinguish between perception and sensation, where sensation refers to what comes through the body as touch.
Thoughts are, in a sense, a mirror of perception, but operating through imagination. They comprise similar aspects. We think with images, which correspond to sight. We think with sounds, such as inner dialogue. I can think of the sound of my father's voice or a bird calling. It's a thought, but it has the nature of sound; it is a reproduction in imagination.
So that is what I call thought: images and sounds. And then there are concepts. For example, what is a chair? A chair doesn't have a specific image. A specific chair does. But the concept of "chair" is a more abstract form. That, too, is a thought.
Just for my understanding, and not that it actually matters, but is this definition the same as what Buddhism describes in the Five Skandhas: form, sensations, feelings, perceptions, and volition?
I'm not so versed in the details of Buddhism, but the way I've understood the skandhas is that they include all of phenomena. Different skandhas cover perception, sensation, thought, and anything that has any kind of form. I would have to read them again to answer the question more precisely.
The skandhas and the question of self
But the key point in Buddhism is that anything that has form, anything that Western philosophy would describe as phenomenal (thought forms, sensations, perception) is all experience. It is something that is known. We could call it the objective. But it also includes what we often call subjective. We say thoughts are subjective, but in Buddhism, all of that is considered the domain where you will not find self. Self will not be found in sensation, in perception, in the experience of the body, or in the experience of will.
The skandhas also include a category translated as "consciousness," which creates confusion because many people use a different definition of consciousness. When you refer to consciousness as that formless "I am-ness," that is quite different from the Buddhist use of the term, which refers more to mind, to something that is still form-like.
Yes, I understand that. The word translated as "consciousness" in the skandhas is not the same as the consciousness spoken of in non-duality, which is the larger, all-inclusive awareness. In Buddhism, that fifth skandha refers to the consciousness of the smaller self, the mind. It's the knowing of the person, the small "me," not the vast awareness that is prior to everything and nothing.
This is exactly why I get confused whenever terms like perception, thought, consciousness, awareness, and mind are used. They are such broad terms, and different traditions point to different things with the same words.
That is precisely what I am trying to do here: translate these ideas into your framework, into your Buddhist understanding, so that the pointing can land.
Terminology across traditions
When the skandhas include consciousness, everything within them is what we would call phenomenological. It is everything that is experienced, everything that is a known thing. Even if something doesn't have a gross form, it could be of subtle form. Buddhism has extensive language around the subtle (I don't remember the exact term), referring to that which seems to be the subject but is still subtle form.
It is genuinely confusing because of translation differences, different cultures, and different teachings. The word "mind," for instance, can be applied to perception as well as thought. But when I use the word "thought," I am referring specifically to that which is not sensation and not perception. You could, however, call all of it (sensation, perception, thought) "mind." And then all of that is not I.
The "I" here refers to what, exactly?
The "I" refers to that which you point to when you say "I." We all point to the same thing. But there can be a misunderstanding or confusion about its nature.
The big "I," right?
Yes. That which knows the experience you are having. Now, you can break up what is experienced in different ways. In Western philosophy you might call it one thing; in Buddhism you call it something else. You could make fifteen skandhas if you really wanted to get into specifics. But the essential pointing, for example in Buddhism, is that in all of these forms, you will not find "I." You will not find something you can call a self. The teaching is a systematic breaking down of everything you might identify with.
Right, because it's "not that, not that, not that, not that."
Exactly.