Reality vs. Concepts

[Spiny Norman]

Is it? You observed earlier that something only comes to be an object (i.e. object-ified) once you’ve conceptually perceived it as an object.

I sometimes consciously label objects, which is interesting, because usually it isn't a concious process.

[SarathW]

Ultimate and conventional truth are simply two ways to understand reality.

And one is not more correct than the other.

Good point.
Then why do we bother about whether something is ultimate or conventional?

[mikenz66]

Actually, the labelling is definitely not supposed to be "self-narration", but an antidote to "self-narration". The labelling isn't the point, it's just a way of getting focus. Focussing directly on the experience and identifying exactly what it is, without making a story out of it, or drifting off into day dreaming is the point, and that's what this method can do if it is done well. Doing it well takes a bit of practice and trial and error.

It wasn't derogatory. Maybe it is an antidote to daydreaming and over-thinking what you are doing, but it still sounds like narration, although very minimalist. Labeling could be a better term.

If it sounds like narration, you may be missing the point. Listen to a few of Patrick Kearney's expositions, or read U Pandita's "In this very life", http://www.softerviews.org/AIM/inthisverylife.html, Or Nyanaponika's "Heart of Buddhist Meditation" for a more detailed explanation.

[R]emember that in using the labeling technique, your goal is not to gain verbal skills. Labeling technique helps us to perceive clearly the actual qualities of our experience, without getting immersed in the content. It develops mental power and focus. In meditation we seek a deep, clear, precise awareness of the mind and body. This direct awareness shows us the truth about our lives, the actual nature of mental and physical processes.

Mike

[tiltbillings]

Ultimate and conventional truth are simply two ways to understand reality.

And one is not more correct than the other.

Good point.
Then why do we bother about whether something is ultimate or conventional?

It may be a matter of preference.

[SarathW]

Re SarathW;s question about an infant.

I would like to recommend you to read "MAHAMALUNKYA SUTTA in MN, Buddha explains how an infant who does not have even a view of personality etc.understands.

The infant is influenced by the accumulations which are hidden - dormant- as 'anusaya'!

Thanks
The point I am trying to make is newly born babies see things as they are but they are conditioned by Anusaya.
So adults also conditioned by Anusaya.
How does Anusaya emanated by understanding realities and concepts.

[ThomasC]

Bhante, thank you for the link to U Silananda's text, it's very helpful. I've read many articles on your site, not sure how I missed that one.
I think my problem here really comes down to the immaturity of my practice--sometimes the philosophical issue in the original post never comes up at all and practice goes very well; other times I find labeling getting in my way. When done skillfully I find noting to be an amazing technique, but it does seem easy to go about it wrongly and miss the point, particularly as a beginner. The general philosophical discussion of the real vs the conceptual is really interesting, but perhaps I've reached a point now where it will be more helpful to practice more and think less.

[mikenz66]

Hi Thomas,

I agree, it's easy for a technique to get in the way. I'm sure I spent some months just imagining the movement of the abdomen. But without the noting I think the "imagining" time would have been even longer...

It's always useful to have some personal contact with others who can point you in the right direction. If you don't have any teacher or fellow practitioners, you might consider working though one of Patrick Kearney's retreats. The discussions there, by both Patrick and the participants, can be useful in clarifying many practical issues.


Mike

[ThomasC]

Ha, I know exactly what you mean about imagining the rising and falling, I've definitely caught myself doing that. It's amazing how easy it can be to visualize doing something instead of actually doing it, but the difference is like night and day.

No fellow practitioners, but I do have a teacher who is nice enough to give me some Dhamma lessons and Q&A time. Still, I'm also trying to learn as much as I can from reputable Dhamma talks and videos as well. Recently I've been listening to Joseph Goldstein's talks on the Satipatthana Sutta, which I'm loving. Very, very inspiring and helpful (insightful, one might say...). I'll check out Patrick Kearney's talks as well, thanks.


Thomas

[samseva]

And one is not more correct than the other.

Good point.
Then why do we bother about whether something is ultimate or conventional?

It may be a matter of preference.

Or practicality.

[samseva]

If it sounds like narration, you may be missing the point. Listen to a few of Patrick Kearney's expositions, or read U Pandita's "In this very life", http://www.softerviews.org/AIM/inthisverylife.html, Or Nyanaponika's "Heart of Buddhist Meditation" for a more detailed explanation.

[R]emember that in using the labeling technique, your goal is not to gain verbal skills. Labeling technique helps us to perceive clearly the actual qualities of our experience, without getting immersed in the content. It develops mental power and focus. In meditation we seek a deep, clear, precise awareness of the mind and body. This direct awareness shows us the truth about our lives, the actual nature of mental and physical processes.

I get that. I'm just not a fan of labeling. It also isn't in the Suttas. Although I'm sure it can be effective and that it has its uses. It is like counting described in the Visuddhimagga for ānāpānasati. It's useful, but ultimately, only noticing should be the end goal.

[pegembara]

Ultimate and conventional truth are simply two ways to understand reality.

And one is not more correct than the other.

One leads to samsara and the other to liberation.

“Ever since the Cognitive Revolution, Sapiens have thus been living in a dual reality. On the one hand, the objective reality of rivers, trees and lions; and on the other hand, the imagined reality of gods, nations and corporations. As time went by, the imagined reality became ever more powerful, so that today the very survival of rivers, trees and lions depends on the grace of imagined entities such as the United States and Google.”
― Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Truth is there is an even deeper reality than rivers, trees and lions.

Appearances are determined into existence. Why must we determine them? Because they don't intrinsically exist. For example, suppose somebody wanted to make a marker. He would take a piece of wood or a rock and place it on the ground, and then call it a marker. Actually it's not a marker. There isn't any marker, that's why you must determine it into existence. In the same way we "determine" cities, people, cattle -- everything! Why must we determine these things? Because originally they do not exist.

Concepts such as "monk" and "layperson" are also "determinations." We determine these things into existence because intrinsically they aren't here. It's like having an empty dish -- you can put anything you like into it because it's empty. This is the nature of determined reality. Men and women are simply determined concepts, as are all the things around us.

If we know the truth of determinations clearly, we will know that there are no beings, because "beings" are determined things. Understanding that these things are simply determinations, you can be at peace. But if you believe that the person, being, the "mine," the "theirs," and so on are intrinsic qualities, then you must laugh and cry over them. These are the proliferation of conditioning factors. If we take such things to be ours there will always be suffering. This is micchaditthi, Wrong View. Names are not intrinsic realities, they are provisional truths. Only after we are born do we obtain names, isn't that so? Or did you have your name already when you were born? The name comes afterwards, right? Why must we determine these names? Because intrinsically they aren't there.

We should clearly understand these determinations. Good, evil, high, low, black and white are all determinations. We are all lost in determinations. This is why at the funeral ceremonies the monks chant, Anicca vata sankhara... Conditions are impermanent, they arise and pass way. That's the truth. What is there that, having arisen, doesn't cease? Good moods arise and then cease. Have you ever seen anybody cry for three or four years? At the most, you may see people crying a whole night, and then the tears dry up. Having arisen, they cease...

Tesam vupasamo sukho... [27] If we understand sankharas, proliferations, and thereby subdue them, this is the greatest happiness. This is true merit, to be calmed of proliferations, calmed of "being," calmed of individuality, of the burden of self. Transcending these things one sees the Unconditioned. This means that no matter what happens, the mind doesn't proliferate around it. There's nothing that can throw the mind off its natural balance. What else could you want? This is the end, the finish.

Toward the Unconditioned - Ajahn Chah
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/livdhamma/livdham09.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tiltbillings]

samseva wrote: Ultimate and conventional truth are simply two ways to understand reality.

tiltbillings wrote: And one is not more correct than the other.

One leads to samsara and the other to liberation.

Seriously? Give us an example of conventional teachings of the Buddha that leads to samsara.

[mikenz66]

If it sounds like narration, you may be missing the point. Listen to a few of Patrick Kearney's expositions, or read U Pandita's "In this very life", http://www.softerviews.org/AIM/inthisverylife.html, Or Nyanaponika's "Heart of Buddhist Meditation" for a more detailed explanation.

[R]emember that in using the labeling technique, your goal is not to gain verbal skills. Labeling technique helps us to perceive clearly the actual qualities of our experience, without getting immersed in the content. It develops mental power and focus. In meditation we seek a deep, clear, precise awareness of the mind and body. This direct awareness shows us the truth about our lives, the actual nature of mental and physical processes.

I get that. I'm just not a fan of labeling. It also isn't in the Suttas. Although I'm sure it can be effective and that it has its uses. It is like counting described in the Visuddhimagga for ānāpānasati. It's useful, but ultimately, only noticing should be the end goal.

Sure, the goal is noticing. The problem is that it's so easy for the mind to start making up stories, so techniques like counting or noting are useful to get to the noticing stage.

And, of course. many of the the instructions from all modern teacher are not in the suttas. Everyone has their particular additions (Ven Thanissaro, Goenka, Ven Brahm, etc...). But they all teach particular approaches ("tricks") that they, and their students, have found useful. And all are certainly compatible with the suttas, which I think it the key yardstick.

Personally, I think the noting technique takes quite a bit of time to figure out properly. It took me months, which included discussing it with my teachers, and reading various resources. I think this is common with modern approachs. Goenka's scanning technique takes a whole retreat to just get started (which I did, but I prefer the Mahasi approach, probably mostly because I learned it first...). And presumably Ven Thanissaro's extensions, such as breath manipulation, take a while to learn. I've never seriously tried them, so I'm not in a position to comment.


Mike

[pegembara]

samseva wrote: Ultimate and conventional truth are simply two ways to understand reality.

tiltbillings wrote: And one is not more correct than the other.

One leads to samsara and the other to liberation.

Seriously? Give us an example of conventional teachings of the Buddha that leads to samsara.

How about this? Do acquisitions(taking up of things including any views such as making merits) lead to freedom?
Okay perhaps not lead to samsara but certainly doesn't lead all the way towards liberation.

But we are not talking about the Buddha's conventional teachings (setting up a strawman) but what the world believes to be true or real eg. the self, soul, God, Pope, King and country, property etc.

"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.

Maha-cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty

Again we are not talking about the Buddha's teaching at all - mundane or supramundane - but conventional truth vs ultimate reality. Conventional truth is things either exist or doesn't. This is ignorance. So how can it lead to freedom but only birth and death.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

Kaccayanagotta Sutta

[tiltbillings]

But we are not talking about the Buddha's conventional teachings

You may not be, but I am.