Okay, yes; dispassion from the inside out, so to speak. Through meditation on the dhathus, the elements, one develops insight into the insubstantial nature of rupa. That rupa isn't a "solid" as it appears, just a construction of components we mistake for a certain thing. Seeing this, it loses its glamour. We see its true, mundane nature not the idealistic and grandiose label we like to stick on it. It all falls apart. You can fall in love with a body; how can you fall in love with a collection of earth wind fire and liquid?
I begin to realize our error of perception is thinking rupa is somehow more "solid" than nama. Yow.
Internal nature= experiential, external nature = that which we're experiencing. Or so I think. Am I making sense or have I gotten lost in the woods of my own speculation?
J
The rupa in nama-rupa
- BubbaBuddhist
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
- Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
- Contact:
Re: The rupa in nama-rupa
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
Re: The rupa in nama-rupa
Wow. Great observation. Unless its conceptualized and named as a discrete entity, it isnt.Bubbabuddhist wrote:
I begin to realize our error of perception is thinking rupa is somehow more "solid" than nama. Yow.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
Re: The rupa in nama-rupa
A Yogacharin would take the metaphysical/ontological position that no body exists outside of our sensing since all phenomena are ultimately mental. That would be speculation on how things are beyond our experience of them. That's not what I'm saying.tiltbillings wrote:Geez, you sound like a Yogacharin or a Theravadin.Shonin wrote:We don't find an objectively existing body outside of our sensory experiences of the body.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The rupa in nama-rupa
It depends upon whose notion of Yogachara you read. The last place one should go to for an understanding of Yogachara are the Tibetans via their "tenet system." This might give a better look at what it teaches, coming from one one of the best scholars on the subject: http://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/bios ... 20crux.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Shonin wrote:A Yogacharin would take the metaphysical/ontological position that no body exists outside of our sensing since all phenomena are ultimately mental. That would be speculation on how things are beyond our experience of them. That's not what I'm saying.tiltbillings wrote:Geez, you sound like a Yogacharin or a Theravadin.Shonin wrote:We don't find an objectively existing body outside of our sensory experiences of the body.
Everything we know, conceive, imagine, or are aware of, we know through cognition, including
the notion that entities might exist independent of our cognition. The mind doesn’t create the physical
world, but it produces the interpretative categories through which we know and classify the physical world,
and it does this so seamlessly that we mistake our interpretations for the world itself. Those interpretations,
which are projections of our desires and anxieties, become obstructions (åvara¿a) preventing us from seeing
what is actually the case. In simple terms we are blinded by our own self-interests, our own prejudices
(which means what is already prejudged), our desires. Unenlightened cognition is an appropriative act.
Yogåcåra does not speak about subjects and objects; instead it analyzes perception in terms of graspers
(gråhaka) and what is grasped (gråhya).
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The rupa in nama-rupa
Greetings,
Cool - where do I sign up?
(that sounds entirely in accord with the Sutta Pitaka to me...)
Metta,
Retro.
Cool - where do I sign up?
(that sounds entirely in accord with the Sutta Pitaka to me...)
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The rupa in nama-rupa
The only problem is that Yogachara is a very complex system. And, of course, it also not singular in its lines of thought throughout its history.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Cool - where do I sign up?
(that sounds entirely in accord with the Sutta Pitaka to me...)
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: The rupa in nama-rupa
That's interesting. I have no disagreement with that interpretation. Thanks.tiltbillings wrote:It depends upon whose notion of Yogachara you read. The last place one should go to for an understanding of Yogachara are the Tibetans via their "tenet system." This might give a better look at what it teaches, coming from one one of the best scholars on the subject: http://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/bios ... 20crux.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Everything we know, conceive, imagine, or are aware of, we know through cognition, including
the notion that entities might exist independent of our cognition. The mind doesn’t create the physical
world, but it produces the interpretative categories through which we know and classify the physical world,
and it does this so seamlessly that we mistake our interpretations for the world itself. Those interpretations,
which are projections of our desires and anxieties, become obstructions (åvara¿a) preventing us from seeing
what is actually the case. In simple terms we are blinded by our own self-interests, our own prejudices
(which means what is already prejudged), our desires. Unenlightened cognition is an appropriative act.
Yogåcåra does not speak about subjects and objects; instead it analyzes perception in terms of graspers
(gråhaka) and what is grasped (gråhya).