Re: Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:23 pm
Which school of Vipassana have you attended retreats in T Mingyur ?
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Hopefully Ben will talk about his own experience when he finds the time.Goofaholix wrote:Except that he practices a technique that doesn't use labelling or noting.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.
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.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.
bump.PeterB wrote:Which school of Vipassana have you attended retreats in T Mingyur ?
No. Direct experience is not conceptual. But there is no discerning in direct experience. As soon as there is noticing "something" there is discerning "something" as different from that which is not it. And this is conceptual. Even if it is sort of subliminal ...Goofaholix wrote: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.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.
What you've described is termed "Conciousness" in Buddhism.TMingyur wrote:No. Direct experience is not conceptual. But there is no discerning in direct experience. As soon as there is noticing "something" there is discerning "something" as different from that which is not it. And this is conceptual. Even if it is sort of subliminal ...
Concepts are already "the cognitive dawning of an image able to coalesce with verbalism".
Actually it is an aspect of "name" in "name and form" and "name and form" and consciousness condition each other, are not independent of each other.Goofaholix wrote:What you've described is termed "Conciousness" in Buddhism.TMingyur wrote:No. Direct experience is not conceptual. But there is no discerning in direct experience. As soon as there is noticing "something" there is discerning "something" as different from that which is not it. And this is conceptual. Even if it is sort of subliminal ...
Concepts are already "the cognitive dawning of an image able to coalesce with verbalism".
Are not relevant for this context.Goofaholix wrote: The Cambridge online dictionary ...the Merriam webster
Not synonymous but coextensive: Discerning is necessarily conceptual since the discerned is necessarily a concept even if not yet verbalized. But the meaning of "concept" is not generally "discerning" in all contexts the term "concept" is applied.Goofaholix wrote: In vipassana meditation we distiguish between direct experience and the discerning of it, but even so I wouldn't consider the terms concept and discerning as synonymous.
Yes it is because if we can't agree on the meaning of a word then how can we use it in a discussion?TMingyur wrote: Are not relevant for this context.
Please explain why we can't discern a sensation directly instead of through a "a principle or idea", "something conceived in the mind : thought, notion", or "an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances".Goofaholix wrote: Not synonymous but coextensive: Discerning is necessarily conceptual since the discerned is necessarily a concept even if not yet verbalized. But the meaning of "concept" is not generally "discerning" in all contexts the term "concept" is applied.
But that was the starting point: Our different understanding of conceptuality. If you base your understanding of conceptuality on the sources that you have quoted then fine. However I say that these definition represent only a narrow view in that they exclude the characteristic mark of conceptuality which is (active) "addition" or "contruction" of what "is not (there)" in the first place.Goofaholix wrote:Yes it is because if we can't agree on the meaning of a word then how can we use it in a discussion?TMingyur wrote: Are not relevant for this context.
Because even if there is no full-fledged "idea" or "thought" the characteristic mark of discerning is "'this' but not 'not-this'" which is active construction of "this" (and "not-this"). But without active construction there is no "this" in the first place.Goofaholix wrote:Please explain why we can't discern a sensation directly instead of through a "a principle or idea", "something conceived in the mind : thought, notion", or "an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances".TMingyur wrote: Not synonymous but coextensive: Discerning is necessarily conceptual since the discerned is necessarily a concept even if not yet verbalized. But the meaning of "concept" is not generally "discerning" in all contexts the term "concept" is applied.
I don't have a problem with this definition, but I still don't see what has been added that is not there when a sensation is noticed and a reaction to that sensation is noticed.TMingyur wrote: the characteristic mark of conceptuality which is (active) "addition" or "contruction" of what "is not (there)" in the first place.
Since we don't understand english the same lets try Pali terms, what you are effectively saying is there is no such thing as Vinnana that immediately something is concious the conciousness of it is automatically Sanna and Sankhara.TMingyur wrote: Because even if there is no full-fledged "idea" or "thought" the characteristic mark of discerning is "'this' but not 'not-this'" which is active construction of "this" (and "not-this"). But without active construction there is no "this" in the first place.Ok, so I notice a sensation and I notice a reaction to that sensation, please explain how this is conceptual.
How so? I haven't even mentioned any of those things.TMingyur wrote: Your basis of defining "non-conceptuality" seems to be a combination of "non-grasping" and "non-attachment" and "non-verbalization" and "equanimity".
Hi Geoff,Ñāṇa wrote: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: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.
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).dhamma follower wrote:As to answer your question whether I relate concept with perception. Well, concept is the result of the perception process.
All the best,
Geoff
I agree and disagree, direct experience has both non conceptual and conceptual elements. And there IS discerning in the direct experience. This discerning is not conceptual, it's panna - intuitive wisdom, but the experience- what ever is it, by nature, is a process by which concept is formed -in a split second. Both happen simultanously and makes up what we call insight. If the discerning part is absent in the experience, then it is not insight, my teacher would call it "moha at work".TMingyur wrote:Goofaholix wrote:TMingyur wrote:
No. Direct experience is not conceptual. But there is no discerning in direct experience. As soon as there is noticing "something" there is discerning "something" as different from that which is not it. And this is conceptual. Even if it is sort of subliminal ...
Kind regards
Where would you place sati in this framework?TMingyur wrote:Your understanding of "conceptuality" may be called "gross conceptuality" my understanding includes both "gross conceptuality" and what may be called "subtle conceptuality".