A Prasangika(-like) approach gets old quickly ...
However, only neurotic people succomb to it.
... trying to conceal the power game going on underneath.
A Prasangika(-like) approach gets old quickly ...
... trying to conceal the power game going on underneath.
Seems to me as though the Buddha was not in the business of trying to explain experience in this way, but was focused on what the actual experience was, i.e. what is there. For instance, there are feelings, thoughts, perceptions, yes, but as far as taking that additional step to say, "These things are all within our mind," was a redundancy that the Buddha avoided. Whether or not it was in the mind was beside the point; the things are there because "there is body" and anything further on the matter dealt with dependency and/or appearance, which have nothing at all to do with explaining the process by which things are there.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm I think the difficulty we are having is in what we define as phenomena. For example, do we really see things or are we seeing the 'image' of things? I think Buddha as well as neuro scientists say that all experience is within our minds, the thought structure, the image making activity, our perceptions. We are not actually having a direct experience of sense objects.
Indeed, it is only the impression that gives the priority, but it is the holding/clinging to that arrangement that solidifies that as Being. That holding has craving as its determination, so it is not a simple matter of deciding to think differently. This arrangement is reality for one not free from it - held in the sense that it routinely acceptable in its appearance, and even a thought that would deny it is denied in a manner that is particular. But in a general sense, things have remained the same. I may have denied the existence in that instance, but that does not change the fact that there is that thing identified as existence in the experience and it has not ceased to be there.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm We have experience of our thought structure, the world mind. This gives the impression that this structure precedes the sense bases and is primordial which it is not.
But is there experience? Was he careful to distinguish?Saengnapha wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm He often said 'there is no one here and no one having an experience'.
He described the way he functioned. The way he functioned was without an experiencer. He said there was nothing apart (no observer, no self, no distinguishser) from what was going on. You were that. It was the play of the senses, of the body, without an interpreter. Because there was no interpreter naming the sensations of sight, sound, etc., he would call it a state of not knowing. If you asked him what he was looking at, he would immediatley say a bird or a flower or the wall. But if there was no demand for information, he would simply rest in the moment. He would often say what is there can never be known. That which distinguishes seemed absent in him. If you spent a little time with the first video I posted in the U.G. thread called 'Thinking Allowed', this might answer many things about him. I think you would find it quite interesting.SDC wrote: ↑Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:02 pmSeems to me as though the Buddha was not in the business of trying to explain experience in this way, but was focused on what the actual experience was, i.e. what is there. For instance, there are feelings, thoughts, perceptions, yes, but as far as taking that additional step to say, "These things are all within our mind," was a redundancy that the Buddha avoided. Whether or not it was in the mind was beside the point; the things are there because "there is body" and anything further on the matter dealt with dependency and/or appearance, which have nothing at all to do with explaining the process by which things are there.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm I think the difficulty we are having is in what we define as phenomena. For example, do we really see things or are we seeing the 'image' of things? I think Buddha as well as neuro scientists say that all experience is within our minds, the thought structure, the image making activity, our perceptions. We are not actually having a direct experience of sense objects.
I do not think the idea of "seeing images of things" is wrong. In fact, it would be more accurate to say as such then to try and explain direct contact with matter. But again, to the image is in my mind, presupposes a primordial existence far beyond the scope of appearance, and that is simply not the nature of things. The "existence" or "self" appears just like any other thing, but being in that position of priority gives the impression that it is not an appearance but the reason for appearance in the first place.
Indeed, it is only the impression that gives the priority, but it is the holding/clinging to that arrangement that solidifies that as Being. That holding has craving as its determination, so it is not a simple matter of deciding to think differently. This arrangement is reality for one not free from it - held in the sense that it routinely acceptable in its appearance, and even a thought that would deny it is denied in a manner that is particular. But in a general sense, things have remained the same. I may have denied the existence in that instance, but that does not change the fact that there is that thing identified as existence in the experience and it has not ceased to be there.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm We have experience of our thought structure, the world mind. This gives the impression that this structure precedes the sense bases and is primordial which it is not.
But is there experience? Was he careful to distinguish?Saengnapha wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 pm He often said 'there is no one here and no one having an experience'.
I don't have an approach to insight. Perhaps a gave a wrong impression. I don't think insight can be approached. It is something that happens when you are investigating experience. Even the term investigation is not really my point. Being attentive to what is present is a continuing deepening into the nature of experience. Insight happens. The thought structure loosens. Openness and clarity are present. No need for descriptions. I don't do satipatthana practice but if you want to name it that, it's okay by me. What do you think?