mikenz66 wrote: retrofuturist wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:how does one "see" the three marks of a concept?
Concept is an object of mind-consciousness ...
In which sutta does it say that a concept is an object
At the very least, thinking about a concept involves a very complicated sequence of mind-objects. At least that's my experience...
Which is the point of this thread. In the suttas insight (where it is explained in detail) seems to arise as a result of breaking down experience into simple objects.
It seems like an important question to ask whether there are examples of insight arising via complicated objects. Some sutta references would be appreciated.
I've not read through all the thread, so I've probably missed some important points...
However, I think that the above is the KEY point to this discussion.
IMO, concepts are not direct object of mind-conciousness. As Mike haspointed out, they are result of a complex process involving sannas (memory) among others. The thing is, what can be understood by panna as anicca, dukkha, anatta is the process it-self, not the result of that process.
Let's say, now pay attention to your body, it's the touching- sense door is involved, right? What the touching sense door can experience directly: only heaviness, softness, motion...
Can you know that this is hand, leg etc... without the mind- door process, remembering what has been learned before?
Now the mind-door process can be known too, but it is distinctive from the final answer "this is leg, hand etc..." although all happen in a split second. When sati is aware of this entire process, panna arises and understand that this is just a process, only elements, nobody is there. Panna is not concerned with hand, leg or whatever the result of that process.
It doesn't really matter whether cittas, cetasikas etc... are ultimately real, arguing about that is only for the sake of arguing.
What is more important is that they are objects of sati and panna, while house, leg, hand... are not.
Becoming aware of their characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anatta are the steps leading to Nibanna. This is what the Buddha has repeatedly taught in the suttas, right? Without distinguishing concepts from the processes that create them, can we ever truly understand anicca, dukkha, anatta?
When talking about the tilakkhana, the Buddha always used paramatha, right? (seeing, hearing, perceptions, feeling, mental formations...), could someone points out otherwise?