Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.

Re: Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

Postby rowyourboat » Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:20 am

eye+visual object (both rupa)--> eye consciousness--> phassa/contact (nama/mental)-->vedana/feeling (nama)-->sanna/labels-->sankhara/mental fabrications

I think concepts start with and after that sanna/lables stage.

with vipassana we peel away from the sankhara backwards along this process so that we get to the phassa/contact level when there is 'bare awareness' (sight, sound, colour) perhaps even without the accompanying label (cat, car, flower).

(Vipassana) samadhi must grow for this to happen as it dampens the process of perception and stops proliferation and dispersion of the mind into sankhara/mental fabrication.

with metta
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
rowyourboat
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

Postby orangemod » Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:11 pm

Mike:
Thanks so much for the access to the book. I just started reading it and it is the perfect place for a beginner to start !!!
I have found it very easy to read & understand....because reading some of the posts here seems like reading a foreign language.
Meaning that the members here are so far more advanced than myself, I have to start somewhere to get familiar enough to comprehend well enough to try to follow.
Thank you and thanks to all here.
Cheers, Dave
User avatar
orangemod
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:39 am
Location: Decatur Illinois

Re: Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

Postby rowyourboat » Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:30 pm

Hi Dave

Sorry if my above post put you off! That was not my intention but simply adding something that might be of use to someone. I did not have the time to explain it all in detail, and besides it was not of great consequence. Best wishes on your path!

with metta

RYB
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
rowyourboat
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

Postby orangemod » Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:35 am

rowyourboat wrote:Hi Dave

Sorry if my above post put you off! That was not my intention but simply adding something that might be of use to someone. I did not have the time to explain it all in detail, and besides it was not of great consequence. Best wishes on your path!

with metta

RYB



Oh no RYB, I am not put off in any way at all.
Actually, the advanced members words' like yourself just give me something to study towards. Meaning that when I read something I cant follow...I know if I study eventually I will.
Keep it comin' y'all.
I'm impressed by what y'all have attained. I am humbled by all the things I never knew in my life thus far.
But, I'll keep studying and I'm sure it will become more clear.
Have a great week-end.
Cheers, Dave
User avatar
orangemod
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:39 am
Location: Decatur Illinois

Re: Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

Postby orangemod » Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:21 am

BTW, I just researched the salutation "Metta"
I was pleased to learn that it meant so many friendly things.
Best wishes or warmest regards are nice salutations....but "Metta" is like a dozen of these in one simple word.
Is that KOOL, or what !!!?

Metta

Dave
User avatar
orangemod
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:39 am
Location: Decatur Illinois

Re: Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

Postby Ben » Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:36 am

Hi all
Venerable Analayo has some interesting things to say on concept and reality with regards to satipatthana practice. I transcribed the attached extract from his book Satipatthana: the direct path to realization for a friend a few days ago, in part as the result of this discussion. Anyway, I hope you find it as useful as I did.
metta

Ben
Attachments
Analayo on concepts in satipatthana.pdf
(241.96 KiB) Downloaded 30 times
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Hereclitus


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief

Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15890
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

Postby Slow Learner » Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:00 am

Daniel Ingrams wrote:Just so, when practicing morality, the first and most
fundamental training in spirituality, content is everything, or at least as
far as training in morality can take you. You can’t be a mass murderer
and rationalize this by thinking, “Well, they were all impermanent,
unsatisfactory and empty, so why not kill ’em?” This just won’t fly
either, and so content and spirituality get quite connected. This is good
to a point: see the chapter called Right Thought and The Aegean
Stables.



Sorry if this takes things off track but I was just reading through this thread and wondered about the connection between insight practice and dealing with the daily reactions of aversion/craving/delusion that arise. Obviously impermanence isn't a justification for immoral actions, but can insight practice be a valid approach to dealing with feelings like anger, as in watching the sensations that make up the experience of anger with the awareness that they are impermanent, not-self, and suffering, with a view to diminishing the attachment to them? Or is this a confusion of different categories?
Last edited by Slow Learner on Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Slow Learner
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:11 am

Hi Slow Learner,

It's not actually my quote, it's Daniel Ingrams :) and of course it's oversimplified to make some particular points. Clearly being aware that things are impermanence, etc, can be helpful in dealing with stuff, as you say. On the other hand, that is a conceptual awareness of impermanence.

I think that one of the key points is that thinking about impermanence is not the same as having real insight into it, though presumably the former is helpful to developing the latter...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10097
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

Postby Slow Learner » Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:39 pm

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Slow Learner,

It's not actually my quote, it's Daniel Ingrams :) and of course it's oversimplified to make some particular points. Clearly being aware that things are impermanence, etc, can be helpful in dealing with stuff, as you say. On the other hand, that is a conceptual awareness of impermanence.

I think that one of the key points is that thinking about impermanence is not the same as having real insight into it, though presumably the former is helpful to developing the latter...

Metta
Mike



Oops, missed that attribution in the quote - sorry! It's been corrected above.
Slow Learner
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

Postby catmoon » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:01 pm

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Slow Learner,


I think that one of the key points is that thinking about impermanence is not the same as having real insight into it, though presumably the former is helpful to developing the latter...

Metta
Mike


This seems correct to me. Thus, if you want to build intellectual understanding as a platform for understanding something, that is good. But discussion of the non-conceptual won't work, simply because it is impossible. A discussion is composed of concepts you see. To open one's mouth and speak is to conceptualize.

So having built an intellectual basis for understanding, it then becomes necessary to pursue the thing experientially.
User avatar
catmoon
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:59 am

Re: Conceptual and Non-Conceptual

Postby Fruitzilla » Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:51 am

catmoon wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Hi Slow Learner,


I think that one of the key points is that thinking about impermanence is not the same as having real insight into it, though presumably the former is helpful to developing the latter...

Metta
Mike


This seems correct to me. Thus, if you want to build intellectual understanding as a platform for understanding something, that is good. But discussion of the non-conceptual won't work, simply because it is impossible. A discussion is composed of concepts you see. To open one's mouth and speak is to conceptualize.

So having built an intellectual basis for understanding, it then becomes necessary to pursue the thing experientially.


I've heard a buddhist teacher say there's 3 stages to understanding things like impermanence...
The first one is intellectual, the second emotional and the third experential.

My own experience seems to agree with this.
Fruitzilla
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:21 pm

Previous

Return to Theravada Meditation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests