With right awareness any object is right object

[Kenshou]

Perception (saññā) exists along with other aggregates. 4 Great Elements and matter derived from them exists as well.
But not concepts as indivisible and functional objects. It is just thinking made out of many moments of mental aggregates (predominantly saññā ) .

Okay. In light of the definition of "real" being used in this context, I believe I understand. Seems to me you're essentially saying that concepts are mental fabrications, and I can't disagree with that, I suppose I simply choose to disagree with the implications of the issue of "what is real" and the paramattha-dhamma philosophy in general. I think that's all there is to say.

[mikenz66]

Rather than getting into a discussion about the reality, or not, of concepts, could I ask whether anyone has any examples from the Tipitika or commentaries where concepts are used as objects of liberating insight practise?

I gave a couple of quotes to the sort of passage I mean here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4593#p70173" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mike

[Kenshou]

What I tried to say previously is that, though it's true that the word "concept" isn't used, I think there's enough information to come to the conclusion that concepts come under the category of fabrications (or perhaps more accurate to say a bundle of fabrications, since it's true that a concept is not some irreducible thing), one of the aggregates, and are a result of the aggregate of perception (can you label an object without conceptualizing it?), and in that way they are relevant. The 5 aggregates are most certainly described as a potential object of insight.

[mikenz66]

Hi Kenshou,

What I tried to say previously is that, though it's true that the word "concept" isn't used, I think there's enough information to come to the conclusion that concepts come under the category of fabrications (or perhaps more accurate to say a bundle of fabrications, since it's true that a concept is not some irreducible thing), one of the aggregates, and are a result of the aggregate of perception (can you label an object without conceptualizing it?), and in that way they are relevant. The 5 aggregates are most certainly described as a potential object of insight.

OK, that's another interesting question: Do concepts come under sankhāra-khandha?
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... tm#khandha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In S. XXII, 56, there is the following short definition of these 5 groups:
...
What, o Bhikkhus, is the group of mental constructions? There are 6 classes of intentional states cetanā with regard to visual objects, to sounds, to odours, to tastes, to bodily contacts and to mind objects.
...

[See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for the Sutta.]

See also: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications.

I had taken these passages (and the commentarial interpretations) to mean that the sankhāra-khandhas are the process. So if I am planning something then it's the planningthat is the sankhāra-khandha, not the object of planning. Clearly you are taking a different meaning from the texts.

Mike

[Kenshou]

I had taken these passages (and the commentarial interpretations) to mean that the sankhāra-khandhas are the process. So if I am planning something then it's the planningthat is the sankhāra-khandha, not the object of planning. Clearly you are taking a different meaning from the texts.

I believe that the process and the result are two sides of the same coin. Each side is essential in fully understanding the other. But I think I see the point that you're making.

I would then argue that even if the results of the aggregate of fabrication should be counted as separate from the process which produces them, the fact that they are in such close relationship provides an adequate enough reason to bother comprehending them.

Edit: Fixed some grammar.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Alex,

"With right awareness or mindfulness (yoniso manasikāro, sati), any object is the right object"

The question kind of answers itself by the use of "right" (and yoniso manasikāro)

MN 2: Sabbasava Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Blessed One said, "Monks, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what? Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. There are fermentations to be abandoned by seeing, those to be abandoned by restraining, those to be abandoned by using, those to be abandoned by tolerating, those to be abandoned by avoiding, those to be abandoned by destroying, and those to be abandoned by developing.

The whole sutta is relevant actually as it gives examples of what is appropriate and inappropriate, but the above gives a summary of the structures involved.

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi Kenshou,

I had taken these passages (and the commentarial interpretations) to mean that the sankhāra-khandhas are the process. So if I am planning something then it's the planningthat is the sankhāra-khandha, not the object of planning. Clearly you are taking a different meaning from the texts.

I believe that the process and the result are two sides of the same coin. Each side is essential in fully understanding the other. But I think I see the point that you're making.

Isn't the "result" different from the "object"? I might be thinking about something that leads to an action. The thinking/planning process is classified under the formation aggregate, the subsequent action (the "result") will presumably be classified under the form aggregate, but are the thoughts themselves an aggregate? I thought not, but I am open to discussion about it, since I think that it is a tricky point.

I would then argue that even if the results of the aggregate of fabrication should be counted as separate from the process which produces them, the fact that they are in such close relationship provides an adequate enough reason to bother comprehending them.

Mike

[dhamma follower]

I would then argue that even if the results of the aggregate of fabrication should be counted as separate from the process which produces them, the fact that they are in such close relationship provides an adequate enough reason to bother comprehending them.

For what end ?

The question raised here is whether a concept can be direct object for insight into the three characteristics.

The answer is a clear "no", because by definition, concepts are conventional, not real, and don't have the 3 characteristics of paramatha.

It has been shown by the several suttas in Mike's post.

An exemple: the concept of country and clinging to one's country,

It means 1000 things to 1000 people, it's not universal. The clinging to it is actually the clinging to the feelings associated with this concept, induced over the years by all kinds of conditionnings (some people have pleasant feeling, some unpleasant, some mixted). The insight that can free one from such a clinging is the awareness of the whole process of building up this concept, and see it (directly) as just a process, impersonal, happens by cause and effect. For this insight to happen, the attention should be directed to the activities of the mind, not to the concept it-self. This "directing attention" happen in fact naturally, since there's no one who directs. However, when the moment of insight happen, invariably paramatha is the object of that attention. Training to be aware of paramatha (or body mind-process) instead of concepts definitely helps such moments to occur more easily.

D.F

[Kenshou]

...since I think that it is a tricky point.

It is a little tricky. I'd have to do a little reading before I can make a statement one way or the other.

I still maintain that regardless of that subject, the fabricated things are still worth understanding. When it comes down to it that's all I'm really trying to say, since it seems to me that there's a stigma against bothering to analyze such mental fabrications on the grounds that they aren't "paramattha".


dhamma follower-

For what end ?

For clear comprehension and release from dukkha, for that end.

The answer is a clear "no", because by definition, concepts are conventional, not real, and don't have the 3 characteristics of paramatha.

Well, I still disagree, on the grounds that concepts are constructions of the mind and are certainly subject to the three characteristics, regardless of their ultimate reality or not. I'm concerned with experience and how it relates to the origination and cessation of dukkha, regardless of what's "real". I simply don't bother with the philosophy of paramattha dhammas, I don't care for it and therefore I do not accept it's impications. I realize this is a different perspective, and I simply agree to disagree in this area.

I understand that there is the perspective that concepts cannot be subject to the 3 characteristics, because they don't really exist. But I don't care about that so much, because concepts certainly have an impact subjectively, even if they can't be said to properly exist, and so I want to find how out how they work. Why? For gaining an overall more complete understanding of the processes of the mind. Maybe a better way to put it would be to say that I want to come to understand the processes and associations of the mind which give rise to the phenomena or collection of phenomena which I label a "concept". I choose to label this bundle of mental activities a "concept" or "conceptualization", when I say that I am am analyzing it the truth is indeed that I am analyzing those mental processes and not -really- the concept itself.

But I think this is a bunch of time-wasting word-mincing, so I just say that I'm analyzing a concept. I don't think it's that big of a deal.

A "tree" is not really a tree, it's a buzzing collection of fundamental particles obeying the laws of physics, in reality there is no thing that is a "tree". But knowing this doesn't do me a single bit of good when the tree is about to fall on my head. This is how I view this talk about paramattha dhammas and concepts and all this stuff.

It has been shown by the several suttas in Mike's post.

I don't see anything in the suttas quoted that says this. I'm open to correction, however.

The insight that can free one from such a clinging is the awareness of the whole process of building up this concept, and see it (directly) as just a process, impersonal, happens by cause and effect. For this insight to happen, the attention should be directed to the activities of the mind, not to the concept it-self.

I believe that this is kind of what I'd been trying to communicate, that the understanding of arising and passing of everything, concepts included *this is the main point*, is useful. It's true that trying to analyze the processes of formation of concepts is really an analysis of the processes of the mind, yeah. But that's just a matter of perspective, I think.

[Srotapanna]

Hi all,

Note 9th paragraph: http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Vipa ... tfold_Path_(Talk_4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

[dhamma follower]

I believe that this is kind of what I'd been trying to communicate, that the understanding of arising and passing of everything, concepts included *this is the main point*, is useful. It's true that trying to analyze the processes of formation of concepts is really an analysis of the processes of the mind, yeah. But that's just a matter of perspective, I think.

Concepts don't arise and pass away, it's the mind that perceive it that does. Do you see the difference ?

a matter of perspective ? How ?

D.F.

[Kenshou]

But the packages of mental activity and association, which I choose to label a concept, do arise and pass away. The parts change and fluctuate, resulting in a change in the overall package, if you choose to look at it from that perspective as I have. I think that's the main thing, it is indeed a question of perspective, entirely.

It is a matter of perspective weather you choose to look at the "concept" in terms of the whole or it's parts. Looking at it in terms of it's parts and leads to the view that it doesn't really exist, since it is indeed just a group of fluctuating parts. I understand this position. However I personally see no harm in looking at the overall package and deciding to call it a concept for the sake of convenience. I just don't see the value in splitting hairs over it, because I'm not concerned with what is or isn't paramattha. That's all there is to it. To put this in other words, I think it's just that I prefer to use conventional terms sometimes. That's all that's going on here. And since when I attempt to look at the process of a concept, in reality I'm looking at a package of aggregate activity and whatnot, it doesn't really matter what I call it.

Note 9th paragraph: http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Vipa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... th_(Talk_4)

Link seems to be broken.

(that is there's no text on the page, though the page itself does load)

[Alex123]

But the packages of mental activity and association, which I choose to label a concept, do arise and pass away. The parts change and fluctuate, resulting in a change in the overall package, if you choose to look at it from that perspective as I have. I think that's the main thing, it is indeed a question of perspective, entirely.

It is a matter of perspective weather you choose to look at the "concept" in terms of the whole or it's parts. Looking at it in terms of it's parts and leads to the view that it doesn't really exist, since it is indeed just a group of fluctuating parts. I understand this position. However I personally see no harm in looking at the overall package and deciding to call it a concept for the sake of convenience.

The problem is that atta view is also based on seeing packages of mental activity as one entity that has seen, sees and will see. Or that entity that sees, hears, thinks, wills, etc.

[Kenshou]

Which is why we make an effort to observe and understand the bits and parts of the process to see that they do no in actuality add up to a "self". Which is the same thing that can be done to any other concept.

We can refute a ham sandwich similarly, of course there is no thing that is the "sandwich", it's ham and bread and whatever else. But for practical purposes, I'm just going to call that group of things a sandwich.

[mikenz66]

Hi Kenshou,

But I think this is a bunch of time-wasting word-mincing, so I just say that I'm analyzing a concept. I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Actually, it is a big deal if it leads to ineffective practise. That's why I think that it is important to discuss it. The Suttas, Abhidhamma, and Commentaries all seem to agree on this point. Can you find an exception?

All of the instructions I've ever seen from teachers I trust say, basically: Leave your conceptual "stuff" and "baggage" at the door. Pondering that won't lead to liberation. You need to spend your practise time focussing on "realities", however you want to define those.

Of course you may well need to deal with that baggage to get to the stage of focussing on "realities", just as you probably need to develop dana and sila.

Mike