This is the overly complicated later Abhidhamma stuff. Curious as to the source for the claim that: "Note that these designations happen long, long before they are linguistic labels." It would seem that no dhamma is insigicant, if we take the Buddha's teachings seriously. As for concepts, they all share the same nature. It is not the concept that deluding; it is how the concept is related to that is deluding.robertk wrote:I will explain more about concepts in order to clarify
Pannati, concepts, can be classified in many ways . So things like a unicorn can be considered as different types of pannati from trees.
Trees, computers, humans, Robert, Tilt, sarah, are the shadows of what is really there - and what is really there are only namas and rupas, mentality and matter, the aggregates: insignificant dhammas that pass away instantly.
These concepts- human, Robert, are more deluding than concepts like unicorns (which we know have no reality).
Because of accumulated avijja, ignorance, these type of concepts (pannatti) delude and instead of being given their correct status - as necessary designations* - they are assumed to be actual. And that is where all problems begin and end.
*[i]Note that these designations happen long, long before they are linguistic labels. What is called a thought in conventional language is comprised of billions of momentary arisings which repeatedly take a concept as object and may include mentally naming it. Because of this repetition - and the lack of insight into the actual dhammas - the illusion of permanence is solidified[/i].
Sure. When there is concentration and mindfulness, "" ... [there is] ... only the seen in the seen, only the heard in the heard, only the sensed in the sensed, only the cognized in the cognized" ignorance does not find a foothold.The commentary to the UDANA ( translation by Peter Masefield from PTS) (p71,vol1, enlightenment chapter)
"it is ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on within samsara.., it is ignorance since it darts among those things which do not actually exist [i.e. men, women] and since it does not dart among those things that do exist [i.e. it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas].
That is what I have been taught and practice.Which is why I believe vipassana is not a matter of doing something to get something ; instead it is simply the developing of insight into what is real and what is not.