Contemplative Mind in Life

Home » conceptual issues » Vedana – Affective Feeling Tone or simply Sensation?

Vedana – Affective Feeling Tone or simply Sensation?


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,566 other subscribers

RSS Wildmind

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Top Clicks

  • None
Hi all,
I was recently having this conversation with Martine Bachelor, a Buddhist teacher and a few of my colleagues, Judson Brewer and Willoughby Britton. I thought it would be helpful to open it up to the public. I look forward to hearing your comments.
There is certainly confusion amongst many Buddhist translations and psychological translations. Vedana is typically translated as affective feeling tone, but this is confusing in a psychological or cognitive neuroscientific context. Some of our colleagues have vaguely emphasized the association with valence (positive, negative, or neutral).
This issue came up once in a conference in Dharamsala with HH Dalai Lama in the context of asking “what is emotion?” and Bob Thurman had the following to say: Vedana translated as “feelings” confuses sensations of pleasure and pain with mental or emotional reactions to those sensations – so vedana should therefore be translated as “sensation” rather than “feeling”. Pain does not lead to Hatred necessarily – there is a conceptual piece that follows sensation that likely falls under another category. Vedana when put next to Rupa skandha is seen more as a physical process. Feelings like moodiness or anger or sadness are much more vague mental reactions.
Using a physiological and cognitive POV, there is clear evidence that valence (positive, negative or neutral) determination may occur before their is conscious awareness and with associated attentional biases (towards or away from such stimuli) – so at the sensory-perceptual level or early level of attentional processing.  Detection, labeling, and/or interpretation of that valence and the associated emotion clearly happens later (in time) in the cognitive processing stream. So no matter how you end up describing vedana, my suggestion would be to be sure to emphasize such distinctions.


Dear Dave,
This is very interesting.Thank you for the video clip.  I am not totally sure about Bob’s suggested definition.  Vedana comes upon contact, so  feeling tone is quite good, with the emphasis on tone or tonality.  I would use feeling sensation for something a little more elaborate emotionally.  What is interesting about vedana is that the same contact with a different person lead to a different vedana, i.e art, music or food.  Moreover in a different state the same contact will give rise to a different vedana to the same person.  So there is something constructed already in terms of culture or affinity for example, or conditional in terms of circumstances.  Also it can be quite subtle sometimes and then tonality is quite suitable there.  What do you think?Warmly,


Bonjour Martine,
thanks so much for engaging in this dialogue….if you don’t mind, I’d like to share your comments with the contemplative community. I feel it could benefit from more heads than two. 🙂

My difficulty is primarily a semantic one. The word “tone” doesn’t translate well into psychological or cognitive terms in which we typically talk about emotion, sensation/perception, or valence. I think we are likely to agree that contact with a sense object will lead to different vedana across individuals due to culture, inherent bias, conditioning, or otherwise. The often underlooked nature of emotional expression (e.g., anger) lies within the initial contact with the sensory object of that anger (e.g., favorite wine spoils). Upon first taste that the wine has spoiled, there is a non-conscious assessment of taste that either leads to an immediate emotional reaction or cognitive interpretation and further reactivity. In this example, there is a particular temporal framework to describe contact with sense object through non-conscious processing and then a more elaborate expression of emotion. The question I still have is whether Vedana resides in the initial contact with spoiled wine, the knee-jerk reaction of anger, or the cognitive elaboration of anger??



Dear Dave,
Yes, please do share.

It is a good question.

I am very interested in vedanas because I think that they influenced a lot of what we do but it takes time for us to notice where it comes from because we have already elaborated and move somewhere else with it.

In my humble opinion vedana refers to the initial contact.  We come into contact with something, this creates for example an unpleasant feeling tone, which we then have to give meaning to and then we further elaborate and stick it to something else.  I would say that we start with a feeling tone, then it can become a feeling sensation that is where basic anger (survival mechanism, automatic judgement, etc) might come in and then it can turn into a disturbing emotion.  This is a way I would parse it but I am not an academic only a meditator so that I am not sure how the vocabulary could work in an academic context.

Two points to consider.  You have a nice experience > pleasant vedana, then something small abruptly make this change > unpleasant vedana but you do not notice it, it is just a funny feeling.  Then an hour later you find yourself saying something nasty to someone totally foreign to the previous vedanas.  If you investigate you realise that it is the first vedana moving quickly into the 2nd which then lead you to something you think/feel is right when it is wrong.

I have seen this again and again how vedanas seep sideways and create suffering if you are not more aware of them.  I think that vedanas are crucial in terms of being ethical or not but that often there are not that much conscious content but a lot of automatism.

I am also keen on neutral feeling tones and not everyone agree on these.  Maybe we should skype, it could be fun.

The wine example: it starts with a taste > different from expected> could stay there and feel and explore the strangeness of the state: pleasant, unpleasant, neutral.  What does it feel like?  3rd nama is key: perception/meaning> the wine tastes funny > the wine is spoiled>  this is terrible that the wine is spoiled > it was such an expensive bottle >  I/someone made a mistake (again) > I/s/he is terrible >  I am always terrible…..

Do you work with the framework of the nama factors?



Nice article on Martine [Link]


more recently (June, 2017), there was a conference organized by the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies on this topic (Vedana) – [Link]

Here, BCBS resident scholar Mu Soeng overviews the concept of vedana and offers a brief summary of each speaker’s presentation at the symposium. Part two will be a new article from Bhikkhu Analayo on the issue of the third kind of vedana (the neutral or neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant).

Admittedly, there is a difficulty in translation. He states, “When translated as “feeling” or “feeling tone” its understanding in, and application to, meditative process takes on a certain hermeneutic trajectory. When translated as “sensation” an alternate or a parallel understanding and application emerges that could be considered phenomenological.”

Great speakers were present from both Buddhist and Neuroscientific perspectives, including: John Peacock, Akincano Weber, Anne Klein, Robert Buswell, and Martine Batchelor. The other group representing neuroscientists who are also Buddhist practitioners consisted of Sara Lazar, Judson Brewer, Paul Grossman, and Anurag Gupta.

You may all look forward to reading the transcripts of the full presentations as they become available. Unfortunately, I have yet to read a satisfying account clarifying the types of processing contributing to “initial sensory contact” with an object using both pre-conditioned forms of attention, sensory-motor, and memory processing as well as something relatively novel with fewer biases to distort the initial processing pre-conscious and at moment of perception before evaluation.


The full papers from the conference will be published in the Spring 2018 issue of Contemporary Buddhism (Vol 19:1).




  1. Julie Brefczynski-Lewis : If one studies all the classes of Vedana – positive, negative, neutral and then categorized by contact with the sense organs, pure, impure, turbulent, non-turbulent – then it’s very clear that it doesn’t refer to the more vague notion of feelings in English – such as feeling sad, etc. I think Sensation has potential for misinterpretation as well – like the sensation of sandpaper or something. That might be just as far off the mark.


  2. Peggy Murray: Personally, I like “feeling tone” and understand that tone to be either pleasant, unpleasant or neither pleasant or unpleasant (I think the use of the word “neutral” is misleading). My understanding is that vedana is what moves consciousness by quickly hooking up with underlying tendencies; when the sankhara meets and “colors” the vedana, our interpretation= emotion.


  3. Ron Purser: Yes interesting discussion…would be worth opening it up more in terms of the influence of mental formations (samkharas) as prior conditioning of vedanas. Beauty is in the eye of beholder may point to how any contact and its preconscious labeling is conditioned even deeper by mental formations and mental fermentations. Yogacara is an interesting exploration for this inquiry.


  4. peg murray says:

    Dave, I agree with Ron, and in my opinion, the sense doors are more often than not primed by sankharas such that they are prowling the environment for specific types of sensory data that are “nutriment” for that sankhara. Thus the arising of a pleasant, unpleasant or neither pleasant or unpleasant feeling tone is often pre-conditioned even as it co-arises with the contact. My understanding is that all of the system is unconscious to this point.

    What I find most interesting is that the practice allows for a temporal gap during the interpretation phase of vedana such that one can recognize the hookup of vedana and sankhara, disconnect the pleasant, unpleasant or neither feeling tone from the underlying tendency, and consciously determine whether/ what emotional response is cultivated or restrained.

    Even more interesting is coming to understand that in cultivating the wholesome inclination of the mind, one is creating a whole new set of rules for the system to play by.


  5. Ron says:

    Instead of intellectual discussion…..observe sensations which arise before emotions….the arising vedana leads to an emotion. Every human being is addicted to his/her set of vedanas…..the vedana determines his/her habits and behaviours.
    The buddha spoke about observer watching the vedana with
    1) equanimity
    2) impermanence
    Mastery in doing that brings one to start disconnecting his/her reactions and responses to attachments and aversions.


  6. Dadak says:

    a careful reading of the intro should be useful.

    A very good explanation of vedana contemplation with a poor translation of the term 🙂

    Then there are the suttas. When you read translations on accesstoinsight, you can see of they often diverge in terminology.

    I belong to a group having difficulty finding a good enough translation for vedana. Affective valence or even tonality sounds to pedantic for normal (non academic and non scientific) people to use, feeling is really poor and I agree with Prof. Thurman even if his alternative is off the mark; “feeling tone” seems to have preference in our group although it does not trigger anything for me, at least “feeling tonality” seems better, but in fact I just like “affective valence” because this is exactly what this is about. So weird for weird, it should be used instead of the easy “vedana”.

    I find Ron’s “Instead of intellectual discussion” quite condescending, as if persons involved did not have a practice, and how does he knows that? . The discussion here is about translating vedana in English, and having a practice does not help for that, this I can tell you. And by the way he does not translate the term …

    Thanks for opening the discussion Mister Vago.
    By the way your paper with David Silversberg is excellent.


  7. Carol Cook says:

    You folks make this far more complicated than is necessary. I think the Buddha might have done a better job. What about the rest of us (most of us, perhaps) that simply want to be present for the sensations of of our moment to moment experience with minimal intellectual interference. Perhaps too Plebeian?


    • Hi Carol – thanks for your comment. I thought it would be helpful to those interested in the intellectual academic discussion many of us are having in the emerging field of contemplative science. From my perspective, in order to better understand what the historical Buddha taught, clarifying the Pali and Sanskrit words he may have used are critical. So…if you find the discussion too nuanced, you may be satisfied with vedana as Valence (positive, negative or neutral).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: