Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

On the cultivation of insight/wisdom
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by Nyana » Thu Jan 13, 2011 2:27 pm

dhamma follower wrote:Tathagata = concept why : because there's no way we can actually experience the Tathagata
Five aggregates (materiality, feeling, perception, mental fabrication, consciousness)= reality. Why ? Because these can be actually experienced.
Not everyone would agree that the five aggregates = "reality." See, for example, Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought, and The Magic of the Mind.
dhamma follower wrote:As to answer your question whether I relate concept with perception. Well, concept is the result of the perception process.
The individuation of particular dhammas is also dependent upon apperception (saññā). As are the recognition of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and selflessness (i.e. aniccasaññā, dukkhasaññā, anattasaññā).

All the best,

Geoff

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by kirk5a » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:10 pm

As I understand the Bahiya sutta, the Buddha is not instructing to stop thinking, but to be aware of the "cognized in the cognized." You have to read between the lines to see the difference between what he is saying is awakening practice, and our way of being which is unawake. If the correct thing is the seen in the seen, and the cognized in the cognized - then what we normally do, must be to unawaredly "mix" the cognized into the seen, the cognized into the heard, the cognized into the sensed, and even cognize the cognized. I don't think our usual problem is that there is the seen in the heard, the heard in the sensed, and so on - what is called "synesthesia" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

Sacha G
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 7:16 pm
Location: France

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by Sacha G » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:58 pm

Hi Kirk5a
As I understand the instruction to Bahiya, "in the seen there will be only the seen", means there is not somebody who sees, but only "seeing". That's why the Buddha concludes by saying "you are neither here, nor there, nor between the two".
:thinking:
Pali and Theravada texts:
http://dhamma.webnode.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by kirk5a » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:10 pm

Sacha G wrote:Hi Kirk5a
As I understand the instruction to Bahiya, "in the seen there will be only the seen", means there is not somebody who sees, but only "seeing". That's why the Buddha concludes by saying "you are neither here, nor there, nor between the two".
:thinking:
Right. But we can't jump directly to anatta. So the instruction given shows a method of practice that allows for that. "you should train yourself thus" Practicing being aware of just the seen in the seen, the sense of "me" in the seen, or in relation to the seen, weakens.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by Goofaholix » Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:35 pm

PeterB wrote:I am afraid that we ( and I include myself here ) have got into the habit of being a bit imprecise in our use of terms Norman...
I would be interested in Ben's take as he has just got back from a Vipassana intensive.
Except that he practices a technique that doesn't use labelling or noting.
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by Goofaholix » Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:37 pm

TMingyur wrote:The interest in this topic seems to be based on confusing "attachment to concepts" and "concepts". Since everbody is interested in "non-attachment" there arises the idea that the flaw is inherent in "concepts", however it is just "attachment to concepts" that is the flaw.
And since "non-attachment" is highly esteemed there arises the bias to label "non-conceptual" meditation methods that actually are still conceptual. But there is no value inherent in non-conceptuality.
I consider the process the Satipatthana Sutta describes to be conceptual because what you label "experience" are concepts from my perspective. However as to the insight this conceptual process leads to ... I do not dare to label it either "conceptual" or "non-conceptual".
Ok, so I notice a sensation and I notice a reaction to that sensation, please explain how this is conceptual.
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by Goofaholix » Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:41 pm

Spiny O'Norman wrote:
PeterB wrote:There is more than one " noting " technique...One involves naming...so that on hearing a car back fire outside one says " hearing hearing " ( for example ) and then returns to the object.
Another involves focusing awareness on a particular feeling or sensation without naming. And then moving the focus to another feeling or sensation.
Oh, I see. I assumed "noting" always involved some level of labelling.
I think that would be a mistake. I understand labelling to be like training wheels, once it's served it's purpose and you are confident with what you are doing you ditch the training wheels and just be aware of the objects without need of labelling them.
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by ground » Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:51 pm

Goofaholix wrote:
TMingyur wrote:The interest in this topic seems to be based on confusing "attachment to concepts" and "concepts". Since everbody is interested in "non-attachment" there arises the idea that the flaw is inherent in "concepts", however it is just "attachment to concepts" that is the flaw.
And since "non-attachment" is highly esteemed there arises the bias to label "non-conceptual" meditation methods that actually are still conceptual. But there is no value inherent in non-conceptuality.
I consider the process the Satipatthana Sutta describes to be conceptual because what you label "experience" are concepts from my perspective. However as to the insight this conceptual process leads to ... I do not dare to label it either "conceptual" or "non-conceptual".
Ok, so I notice a sensation and I notice a reaction to that sensation, please explain how this is conceptual.
If you notice what is commonly called "sensation" as "sensation" then this is a conceptual data processing.

Kind regards

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by Goofaholix » Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:53 pm

TMingyur wrote: If you notice what is commonly called "sensation" as "sensation" then this is a conceptual data processing.

Kind regards
Yes but if you just notice it without categorising as anything it then where is the concept?
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by ground » Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:05 pm

Goofaholix wrote:
TMingyur wrote: If you notice what is commonly called "sensation" as "sensation" then this is a conceptual data processing.

Kind regards
Yes but if you just notice it without categorising as anything it then where is the concept?
Noticing is conceptual. It is impossible to practice non-conceptually what is described in the Satipatthana Sutta. Why? Because the Satipatthana Sutta discerns different phenomena to be contemplated and you cannot practice according to the Satipatthana Sutta if you do no discern too.

Kind regards

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by PeterB » Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:23 pm

Which school of Vipassana have you attended retreats in T Mingyur ?

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by PeterB » Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:26 pm

Goofaholix wrote:
PeterB wrote:I am afraid that we ( and I include myself here ) have got into the habit of being a bit imprecise in our use of terms Norman...
I would be interested in Ben's take as he has just got back from a Vipassana intensive.
Except that he practices a technique that doesn't use labelling or noting.
Hopefully Ben will talk about his own experience when he finds the time.

User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by ground » Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:31 pm

My remarks as to Satipatthana Sutta practice are in full agreement with Analayo's commentary.

Kind regards

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by Goofaholix » Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:33 pm

TMingyur wrote: Noticing is conceptual. It is impossible to practice non-conceptually what is described in the Satipatthana Sutta. Why? Because the Satipatthana Sutta discerns different phenomena to be contemplated and you cannot practice according to the Satipatthana Sutta if you do no discern too.
As you say, we obviously have a different understanding of the term conceptual, by your definition the term is meaningless as presumably all experience is conceptual.
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?

Post by PeterB » Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:33 pm

PeterB wrote:Which school of Vipassana have you attended retreats in T Mingyur ?
bump.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests