Kim O'Hara wrote:MayaRefugee, TMingyur -
"A good attitude is to learn how to use language without clinging onto meaning/conceptuality/thought too tightly," indeed, but that thought is no excuse for sloppy thinking expressed in sloppy language.
At this point I have no more patience for such thinking and such language; I can't even be bothered working out whether it is deliberate obscurantism on your part or a genuine, and therefore potentially remediable, lack of clarity.
tiltbillings wrote:Given the lovely art produced by Buddhists of any number of schools or a very long time, art has its place.
As for what the Buddha said about imagination, seem not really anything, though there instances where makes a statement of appreciation of beauty of the place he is at.
Friend, this person without blemish, who does not know, as it really is, `There is no blemish in me,' attending to an agreeable sign greed would overcome his mind, hate and delusion would overcome his mind and he would die with a defiled mind.
Friend, this person without blemish, who knows, as it really is, `There is no blemish in me,' attending to an agreeable sign, greed would not overcome his mind, hate and delusiosn would not overcome his mind. He would die without greed, hate and delusion, He would die with an undefiled mind.
Having established that imagination is anything we derive from/add to sensual or direct experience where can we go from here?
Do you have any thoughts on the following:
Does the first imagining influence all imaginings thereafter?
"Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.
All successful human action is preceded by right knowledge.
Right knowledge is twofold:
Direct and indirect (perceptive and inferential).
Direct knowledge means here neither construction (judgement) nor illusion. Construction (or judgement) implies a distinct cognition of a mental reflex which is capable of coalescing with a verbal designation. Knowledge exempt from such (construction), when it is not affected by an illusion produced by color-blindness, rapid motion, travelling on board ship, sickness or other causes, is perceptive (right) knowledge.
MayaRefugee wrote:What are the intricacies pertaining to the material the imagination uses to imagine?
MayaRefugee wrote:Being as respectful as possible, could/does a person born deaf and blind imagine?
TMingyur wrote:Hi chownah,
maybe, but not knowing the context of the canonical use of "construe" neither can I confirm nor can I negate. However "construe" and "imagine" seem to be mutually inclusive.
Conceptuality seems to be involved in both cases. However "conceptuality" how I understand it does not exclusively refer to "moments of thought" or a "thinking process", as in the context of "labeling", but also to the mere assigning of "meaning" on a "more intuitive", non verbal level, i.e. the mark of conceptuality is not the label itself appearing in the mind but the mark is "actively adding" concomitant with "becoming aware".
"actively" seems to be crucial since neuroscience has indicated that there may also be a "passively adding" occuring within sensation itself which is however not concomitant with "becoming aware".
Here is a link to the text I was thinking of:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
and a brief quote:
chownah wrote:Also, if "construe" and "imagine" are "mutually inclusive" as you suggest does this mean that they overlap and that they both have meanings which are shared and they both have meanings which are not shared?....or does this mean that one of them is completely contained in the other(if so then which is the subset and which is the superset?)....or does this mean that they both contain the other completely resulting in them being identical? I'm just wondering how you view this so that I can better understand your ideas.
chownah wrote:Also, are you of the view that concepts from neuroscience can be seamlessly meshed with the Buddha's teachings and thus gain a greater insight?
chownah wrote:Also, I'm not exctly sure what a textbook definition of "conceptuality" might be but I think I uderstand what you are saying about it....to see if I'm on the right track are you saying that "conceptuality" is perhaps the first manipulation of the raw data ...the raw data here would be stimulus (sense object) contacting the sensory organ? For example: light strikes the retina causing activity in the optic nerve....for there to be any meaning to it other than just random light it must be "conceptualized"????
Users browsing this forum: Kim OHara and 9 guests