Page 2 of 13

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:24 am
by mikenz66
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:In which sutta does it say that a concept is an object of mind-conciousness?
In the Kalakarama Sutta (Nanananda transaltion), the Tathagatha explains of himself that...
He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about one who cognizes.

Thus, monks, the Tathagata being such-like in regard to all phenomena seen, heard, sensed, and cognized is 'such'.
In setting himself apart in this way, the Tathagata infers that puthujjanas do indeed "conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition"... in other words, they birfurcate between "concept" and "reality" like the Sujinites.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Sorry, I don't understand how that addresses my question.

:anjali:
Mike

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:27 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Sorry, I don't understand how that addresses my question.
If you don't, you don't, I guess.

If I find a sutta that explicitly uses the word "concept" (what might the Pali for that be?), I'll bring it here to your topic for consideration.

In the meantime, Ven. Nanananda's "Concept And Reality" might be of interest to you, though I'd rather not go into that here since, as cool as Ven. Nanananda is 8-) , he is not Sutta Pitaka.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:29 am
by ground
tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote:A concept can only arise after having been learned. Learning is connecting a mere experience with an optical (reading, seeing) and/or acoustical (hearing) symbol amended by a universal distorting visualization of the experience. A (learned) concept actually is a memory ready to come into mind once the experiential stimulus occurs.

This "memory coming into mind" is nothing other than the cascade of dependent origination. Therefore "memory" or "concept" arises in dependence on all aggregates.
First there is a "stirring" dependent on form/body which may be called "sankhara". Only if there is attention this "stirring" develops further until it "crystallizes" (implying alleged "concreteness"). If there is contact of mind consciousness perception and feeling and papanca and volitional formations ensue.
The sense bases involved are one or more of the physical senses and the mind base. Mind base entails determining consciousness which necessarily implies "memory".


Kind regards
and we can let it go at that.
Or try other descriptions? There are certainly many others possibilies... but that's not the point.

The point is unawareness (ignorance) of thought/concept being such a kind of dependent arising and holding mere experiences to be "really and objectively" this [concept] and categorically different from not-this [concept]. This is actually the beginning of DO: Ignorance -> volitional formations ("impulse", "urge" to determine as "this" [concept]) -> consciousness -> etc. That is dukkha (habitual urge to determine as, i.e. grasping as) perpetuating dukkha (enhancing habits).
[2] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five clinging-aggregates. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five clinging-aggregates? There is the case where a monk [discerns]: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'

"In this way he remains focused internally on the mental qualities in & of themselves, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five clinging-aggregates.

[3] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.)

"In this way he remains focused internally on the mental qualities in & of themselves, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kind regards

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:30 am
by tiltbillings
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
retrofuturist wrote:There is no "concept" separate from experience of it as a mind object.
tiltbillings wrote:As I said, this, I am not touching.
Not even touching it in the context of the Kalakarama Sutta? (Perhaps it might be an opportune time to revisit "Magic Of The Mind"?)
Why, that is very thoughtful of you to recoomend the book I recommeded to you.
tiltbillings wrote:Just as an aside, while the Buddha describes what is done, it is not necessarily how it is done, as the texts quoted make quite clear.
So a small handful of people here seem to say on a regular basis.
I'd say that they are correct in that assessment. Maybe you could start a new thread explaining in more detail this: If however, the focus was the perception (sanna) on the anicca/anatta/dukkha of the volitional formation itself, then that would lead to insight into the characteristics.

In other words, for insight, it doesn't matter what sankhata-dhamma you are watching (whatever division, sub-division etc.), so long as you are observing its anicca/anatta/dukkha characteristics, as compared to absorbing into the formed object itself.

Yet, "moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment"... so what more are you looking for?
And that happened to you? If not then there is a need for putting the teachings into practice, as it is for most of us.

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:33 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:
Yet, "moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment"... so what more are you looking for?
And that happened to you? If not then there is a need for putting the teachings into practice
I make no claims, Tilt.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:34 am
by tiltbillings
TMingyur wrote: The point is unawareness (ignorance) of thought/concept being such a kind of dependent arising and holding mere experiences to be "really and objectively" this [concept] and categorically different from not-this [concept]. This is actually the beginning of DO: Ignorance -> volitional formations ("impulse", "urge" to determine as "this" [concept]) -> consciousness -> etc. That is dukkha.
I am not arguing with you. Other than awkward English, what you are saying here is fine. And we can move on.

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:36 am
by tiltbillings
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:
Yet, "moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment"... so what more are you looking for?
And that happened to you? If not then there is a need for putting the teachings into practice
I make no claims, Tilt.
I did not say that you did; however, my point still stands.

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:38 am
by mikenz66
retrofuturist wrote: If I find a sutta that explicitly uses the word "concept" (what might the Pali for that be?), I'll bring it here to your topic for consideration.
There probably isn't one. But the point I was trying to make is that a concept (in the sense I'm using it) isn't a simple object.
retrofuturist wrote: In the meantime, Ven. Nanananda's "Concept And Reality" might be of interest to you, though I'd rather not go into that here since, as cool as Ven. Nanananda is 8-) , he is not Sutta Pitaka.
Yes, I've read that. He's a clever scholar.

:anjali:
Mike

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:42 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Tilt,

Whether you elect to think that or not is your decision, but this is the "Mental Cultivation in the Sutta Pitaka" sub-forum, and if you are seeking teaching outside the scriptures, then this may not be the section of the forum for it.

Whether you seek it inside or outside the suttas is your prerogative, so I ask that you respect the rights of others to choose for themselves where they seek it.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:45 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:There probably isn't one. But the point I was trying to make is that a concept (in the sense I'm using it) isn't a simple object.
Does the mentioning of the idea of a "simple object" infer the counter-idea of a "complex object"? If so, how would you differentiate between them?

(If you deem that's not relevant to your topic, feel free to ignore... I'm just trying to tease out what you're getting at)

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:50 am
by tiltbillings
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

Whether you elect to think that or not is your decision, but this is the "Mental Cultivation in the Sutta Pitaka" sub-forum, and if you are seeking teaching outside the scriptures, then this may not be the section of the forum for it.
I understand that. Given that my practice is fully consistent with the texts (scriptures has a rather Christiany sound to it), i have no problem with this forum. And if you think I do, you might then do the proper thing and discuss prvtly with me rather than wasting time publicly.
Whether you seek it inside or outside the suttas is your prerogative, and I ask that you respect the rights of others to choose the same (and vice versa).
Spare the lecture. What I am curious about is what people do, specifically as a practice, using the suttas as a guide. It is not a matter that they cannot do that, or should; not do this or that, it is a matter interest and learning.

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:06 am
by mikenz66
retrofuturist wrote: Does the mentioning of the idea of a "simple object" infer the counter-idea of a "complex object"? If so, how would you differentiate between them?
Well, simple objects are simple, complex ones are complex...

That's the whole point. Insight generally seems to be in terms of breaking experience down into simple objects - khandas, sense bases, elements, not trying to wrestle with complex objects like concepts. The thinking about a concept can be broken down into a lot of "simple" processes happening over a considerable period of time.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies (papañcizes), the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.
:anjali:
Mike

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:09 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Mike,

Thanks for clarifying.

It's not a distinction that I'm aware of the Buddha using in the suttas, but again, if I see anything, I'll let you know.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:10 am
by mikenz66
retrofuturist wrote: It's not a distinction that I'm aware of the Buddha using in the suttas, but again, if I see anything, I'll let you know.
It's a distinction I've demonstrated by quoting suttas...

:anjali:
Mike

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:20 pm
by mikenz66
mikenz66 wrote: It's a distinction I've demonstrated by quoting suttas...
To be a little more explicit, the sutta quote above regarding papanca (objectification/conceptual proliferation) seems to be saying that it is a rather complex process, a process that can be broken down into several simpler steps (as can the more common dependent origination sequence).

Similarly, as I sit here, the concept "my body" involves the coming together of a number of sensations and thoughts.

So, are the suttas saying that this "breaking down into simple steps" is an essential part of the insight process?

[Note that I'm trying to avoid taking any philosophical position on "the nature of reality", etc, etc. I'm asking what the suttas say about this matter and what use what they say is for "mental cultivation".]

:anjali:
Mike