Is perception discriminative thinking?

Question

Is perception discriminative thinking? I got the term from the lankavatara sutra, but I think it appears in zen a bit, and I wondered if it means only one type of consciousness, perhaps the 6th or 7th, and if not whether perception itself does not occur during enlightenment?

Answer 1

No. My understanding is that perception happens way before the function of the discursive mind. All the analysis, evaluation and judging happen after perceiving, often through enhancing and further processing the information from our perception. However, most of us are not aware that our unenlightened perception is already tainted i.e. the mind had already decided and labelled the experience upon contact. And there are essentially 3 types of labels: good, bad or neutral with 3 types of corresponding feelings: pleasant, unpleasant or neutral that appears spontaneously.

All these happen incredibly fast before any analysis or discerning has a chance to occur. In fact, they may not even register in our consciousness or awareness until many moments later. I believe this had led to a curious debate in neuroscience, arising from studies that appeared to indicate that, perhaps, free will is just an illusion.

To many observers, these findings debunked the intuitive concept of free will. After all, if neuroscientists can infer the timing or choice of your movements long before you are consciously aware of your decision, perhaps people are merely puppets

I believe, on the other hand, our discerning, judging and discursive mind relies on our memories to do the necessary analysis, evaluation and comparison. When perception arises (with the associated feeling), the mind merely perceives/feels and has yet to consult its memory or recollection. If a being has no memory, when perceiving an apple that looks good, it will proceed to chomp on it. However, with memory, we know that the apple in front of us is still not the best because it has some patches of yellow. So, we may wait or search further for one that is fully ripe i.e. red and delicious.

As mentioned, the unenlightened perception (and the corresponding feelings) is tainted. To truly experience this, requires a deep meditative state or a near death experience when access to our memories is either suspended or unavailable. When encountering a new phenomenon, the mind automatically associates this contact with 3 labels. And the label tends to stick unless there are further changes. Why does our mind automatically create these associations? Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer. But it does indicate how important first impressions are and it also appears to be deeply ingrained.

Which is why, I believe, we need to have a transcendental experience, with the never before encountered data that this experience provided, to see that there can be another label, a 4th option. I believe this 4th option is also alluded to in Kāmabhū Sutta.

When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the themeless, & contact with the undirected.

I believe this is why the attainment of nirodha samapatti is the fastest way to achieve Enlightenment as it reboots the mind and suspends its habitual association so that the mind gets to see another previously unknown option/label and, thus, things can never be the same again.

the case where a monk....might enter & emerge from the cessation of perception & feeling. There is the possibility that if he does not gain gnosis in the here & now, then—going beyond companionship with the devas who feed on material food, and arising in a certain mind-made group

It is written that emerging from nirodha samapatti, a person is guaranteed of least non-returning if not Nirvana.

I believe this habitual association of the mind is also the reason why the Buddha used the simile of a cow whose skin is disjoined. It is indeed an apt description of severing these deeply habitual associations.

This simile, sisters, I have given to convey a message. The message is this: The substance of the inner flesh stands for the six internal media; the substance of the outer hide, for the six external media. The skin muscles, connective tissues, & attachments in between stand for passion & delight. And the sharp knife stands for noble discernment—the noble discernment that cuts, severs, & detaches the defilements, fetters, & bonds in between.

The fact that perception (and feeling) works at such low level does not mean that we are mere robots, programmed with pre-defined responses. It just means that good/pleasant perception/feeling pull and causes clinging. While bad/unpleasant perception/feeling push and causes aversion. And neutral perception/feeling cause bewilderment, boredom and restlessness. With right view (under the noble eightfold path), we can bend our perception/feeling to support right thought/resolve and all the other factors of the path; giving rise to a glimpse of the Deathless, a new option. Ajahn Brahm wrote an article on how our views can change our perception.

Our views bend our perceptions to agree with the view. The perceptions then form the evidence for our thoughts. Then the thoughts argue in support of our view. It is a self-justifying cycle.

All these is possible because right now we are alive with a working memory and a discerning faculty. So, we need to work now to convince and change our perception/feeling to pull towards that which is skillful and push away from that which is unskillful. Observing a mind that has already reached a conclusion (good/pleasant, bad/unpleasant and neutral), that is thus limited in its responses and imprisoned by its own biases; never seeing reality for what it is, can be suffocating. As Ajahn Brahm wrote in the above article.

This process of distortion occurs prior to the event of cognition. It is impossible to see this process as it occurs. It is subconscious. We can only infer its occurrence: we discover that our preferences have embellished the data in order to present to our mind what we want to see, while hostility has denied any access to the mind those features that we don’t want to see. What we see is rarely merely the seen. That which we see with so-called bare attention, not based on jhana, is seldom the truth. It is not the way things are; it is only the way things seem.

Answer 2

In the scriptures we have the word sañña. Sañña means distinguishing, putting a label, telling difference, making distinction, discriminating.

Answer 3

No. Perception perceives. Distinguishing or mental discernment is a distinct aspect of the mind. Perception is not thinking.

Answer 4

The Lankavatara Sutra exists in both the Chinese & Tibetan languages. Regardless, in the Pali language, the word translated as 'perception', namely, 'sanna', is used in ways describing:

1. Direct perception, such as:

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception. And what does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception.

SN 22.79

2. Conceptual thoughts/discriminative thinking or wrong views, such as:

Mendicants, there are these four perversions of perception, mind, and view. What four? Taking impermanence as permanence. Taking suffering as happiness. Taking not-self as self. Taking ugliness as beauty.

AN 4.49

3. A mixture of direct perception & discriminative thinking, such as:

If, Ānanda, you visit the bhikkhu Girimānanda and speak to him about ten perceptions, it is possible that on hearing about them his affliction will immediately subside. What are the ten? (1) The perception of impermanence, (2) the perception of non-self, (3) the perception of unattractiveness, (4) the perception of danger, (5) the perception of abandoning, (6) the perception of dispassion, (7) the perception of cessation, (8) the perception of non-delight in the entire world, (9) the perception of impermanence in all conditioned phenomena, and (10) mindfulness of breathing.

AN 10.60

While merely a translation, the following excerpt translation from the Lankavatara Sutra shows 'perception' as conceptual thought or discriminative thinking:

And because of this, they will transcend the sea of birth and death, karma, desire, and ignorance and the mistaken conceptions concerning the realms of self-existence of the mind, the will, and conceptual consciousness that are perceptions of their own minds. This is why, Mahamati, practitioners should draw near to buddhas and spiritual friends.

Lankavatara Sutra by Red Pine

I guess the word 'perception' is often used as 'wrong view' ('discriminative thinking') not because wrong view is inherently a perception but, because, wrong view involves the non-perception of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self & ugliness.

In other words, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self are direct perceptions however the ordinary person never perceives these realities. Thus, it is like the ordinary person is 'perceiving' permanence, pleasurableness & self because their perception of say 'a computer' is underlain with a view the computer is real & solid (rather than impermanent).

In summary:

1. Impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self are direct perceptions.

2. Permanence, pleasurableness & self are ultimately discriminative conceptual thinking born from not perceiving their opposite negating truths.

Therefore, Buddhist scriptures may use terms such as 'perception of self' to serve as direct explanatory opposite contrasts to the awakened state of 'perception of not-self'. However, the 'perception of self' is not really a 'perception' but, instead, a conceptual thought, as described in SN 22.81:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

SN 22.81