Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Goofaholix wrote:

TMingyur wrote:

Goofaholix wrote:Of course grasping conceptuality is a cause of suffering however if you can't differentiate between conceptuality and the processes of conciousness and perception first how can you let go of that grasping?

I don't understand this question. Conceptuality is associated with "being conscious of" and perception in the context of "being conscious of".

Kind regards

Only in your understanding, as I explained before in Buddhism Conceptuality, conciousness, and perception are three separate khandhas, my question is how can one let go of grasping the former if one can't even see the distinction?

There is no khandha called "conceptuality".

Your questions still does not make any sense to me. The discussion was about conceptuality. Now you are introducing other (gross) concepts and thus you are veiling the original subject.
The original subject was the understanding of conceptuality. There is no necessary context of "grasping". The subject was - and for me still is - conceptuality and nothing else.


Kind regards

It appears to me as if you are reifying buddhist terminology and thus are driven to compare and think "is conceptuality the same as this or is it that?" But these terms all have their applicability depending on context and the perspective from which you are looking at experience.
So in terms of active "synthesis" and "construction" and "adding" the application of the term "conceptuality" is appropriate.


Kind regards

TMingyur wrote:There is no khandha called "conceptuality".

Your questions still does not make any sense to me. The discussion was about conceptuality. Now you are introducing other (gross) concepts and thus you are veiling the original subject.
The original subject was the understanding of conceptuality. There is no necessary context of "grasping". The subject was - and for me still is - conceptuality and nothing else.

No, you veiled the original subject when you defined conceptuality as "discerning", so my reply was to point out that discerning was equivilent to the khanda Sanna and you appeared to be trying to lump Vinnana, Sanna, and Sankhara all under the term Conceptuality.

If was also you who introduced the topic of grasping.

You are correct there is no khandha called "conceptuality" because the Pali canon wasn't written in english, however the defintion of sankhara provided here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object" looks pretty close to the dictionary definition of the word Concept that I've already supplied. Based on those two definitions one can safely say that Vipassana techniques, while they may at times use conceptual thought as training wheels, are not conceptual in nature.

TMingyur wrote:It appears to me as if you are reifying buddhist terminology and thus are driven to compare and think "is conceptuality the same as this or is it that?" But these terms all have their applicability depending on context and the perspective from which you are looking at experience.
So in terms of active "synthesis" and "construction" and "adding" the application of the term "conceptuality" is appropriate.

Hardly reification if one can observe the process of vinnana, sanna, and sankhara in operation. Yes "synthesis" and "construction" and "adding" all belong under the label conceptuality, but discernment and perception do not, vipassana gives importance to the latter.

Goofaholix wrote:No, you veiled the original subject when you defined conceptuality as "discerning",

No. This was not a definition but an instance of conceptuality.

Goofaholix wrote: If was also you who introduced the topic of grasping.

This was when I tried to explain why conceptuality seems to be misunderstood: Because it is confused with "grasping".

Goofaholix wrote: Based on those two definitions one can safely say that Vipassana techniques, while they may at times use conceptual thought as training wheels, are not conceptual in nature.

Well there are different views about this.

Kind regards

TMingyur wrote: No. This was not a definition but an instance of conceptuality.

Yes, that's what I meant.

TMingyur wrote: This was when I tried to explain why conceptuality seems to be misunderstood: Because it is confused with "grasping".

Yes that was when you introduced it.

TMingyur wrote: Well there are different views about this.

Indeed, and until we can agree on the meaning of the words we use then we won't be able to discuss it.

See your definition of the word conceptuality seems to be all mental activity, if the OP also subscribed to that definition then it would make the question "Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?" a dumb question.

Goofaholix wrote:See your definition of the word conceptuality seems to be all mental activity, if the OP also subscribed to that definition then it would make the question "Vipassana: conceptual or non-conceptual?" a dumb question.

To be more precise I consider it to be "all mental activity that is 'adding', 'constructing' or 'synthesizing'." This definition shall leave it open whether there can be mental activity that is empty of that. One could also say "conceptuality is all mental activity that diverts from 'suchness'".
From my perspective it is not a dumb question but a question that may be based on misunderstanding about the inevitability of conceptuality in the context of the "process" or "meditative path" leading to insight. And it is a question that may lack precision. It may lack precision because some understand "Vipassana" to be the insight as such and some understand "Vipassana" to be the "process" or "meditative path" leading to insight. My view is that the latter is certainly and inevitably conceptual.

Kind regards

TMingyur wrote:To be more precise I consider it to be "all mental activity that is 'adding', 'constructing' or 'synthesizing'." This definition shall leave it open whether there can be mental activity that is empty of that. One could also say "conceptuality is all mental activity that diverts from 'suchness'".
From my perspective it is not a dumb question but a question that may be based on misunderstanding about the inevitability of conceptuality in the context of the "process" or "meditative path" leading to insight. And it is a question that may lack precision. It may lack precision because some understand "Vipassana" to be the insight as such and some understand "Vipassana" to be the "process" or "meditative path" leading to insight. My view is that the latter is certainly and inevitably conceptual.

Which brings us back to the question I asked a couple of times in different ways but hasn't yet been answered... a sensation is noticed and a reaction to that sensation has been noticed, where is the mental activity of 'adding', 'constructing' or 'synthesizing'?

Goofaholix wrote: Which brings us back to the question I asked a couple of times in different ways but hasn't yet been answered... a sensation is noticed and a reaction to that sensation has been noticed, where is the mental activity of 'adding', 'constructing' or 'synthesizing'?

This depends on the implication intended by your words "a sensation is noticed". If "a sensation is noticed" shall mean that what is called "a sensation" is thereby differentiated from what is not called "sensation" (i.e. "a sensation" is "discerned"), then your words "a sensation is noticed" refer to an instance of conceptuality.

Kind regards

TMingyur wrote: This depends on the implication intended by your words "a sensation is noticed". If "a sensation is noticed" shall mean that what "a sensation" is thereby differentiated from what is not called "sensation", then your words "a sensation is noticed" refer to an instance of conceptuality.

There can be the noticing of the sensation followed by the "labeling" of the noticing.

TMingyur wrote:This depends on the implication intended by your words "a sensation is noticed". If "a sensation is noticed" shall mean that what "a sensation" is thereby differentiated from what is not called "sensation" (i.e. "a sensation" is "discerned"), then your words "a sensation is noticed" refer to an instance of conceptuality.

No, I didn't say any differentiation or comparison between sensation or non-sensation took place, just sensation is noticed. So by your reply I take it then that if your definition of conceptuality includes sanna/perception/discerning/noticing then I can only assume all mental activity included.

If not what mental activity would you not include under the heading conceptuality?

TMingyur wrote:There can be the noticing of the sensation followed by the "labeling" of the noticing.

Yes and that labelling is something that definately would come under the definition of conceptuality, however the labelling is optional and in my understanding a temporary aid in vipassana techniques.

Goofaholix wrote:

TMingyur wrote:This depends on the implication intended by your words "a sensation is noticed". If "a sensation is noticed" shall mean that what "a sensation" is thereby differentiated from what is not called "sensation" (i.e. "a sensation" is "discerned"), then your words "a sensation is noticed" refer to an instance of conceptuality.

No, I didn't say any differentiation or comparison between sensation or non-sensation took place, just sensation is noticed. So by your reply I take it then that if your definition of conceptuality includes sanna/perception/discerning/noticing then I can only assume all mental activity included.

If not what mental activity would you not include under the heading conceptuality?

Discerning is not actively "comparing" it is "singling out of a phenomenon" from an overall context of "experience" that is undifferentiated. And that "singling out" necessarily is based on concpetuality, since there is involved an (at least subliminal) mnemonic activity ("re-"cognition).

Although I do no share your conclusion as to "all mental activity" because it is ungrounded I am not in a position to name a non-conceptual mental activity without delving into speculation which I do not want to.

Kind regards

Goofaholix wrote:

TMingyur wrote:This depends on the implication intended by your words "a sensation is noticed". If "a sensation is noticed" shall mean that what "a sensation" is thereby differentiated from what is not called "sensation" (i.e. "a sensation" is "discerned"), then your words "a sensation is noticed" refer to an instance of conceptuality.

No, I didn't say any differentiation or comparison between sensation or non-sensation took place, just sensation is noticed. So by your reply I take it then that if your definition of conceptuality includes sanna/perception/discerning/noticing then I can only assume all mental activity included.

If not what mental activity would you not include under the heading conceptuality?

Saññā can be seen without conceptualizing about it.

Goofaholix wrote:

TMingyur wrote:There can be the noticing of the sensation followed by the "labeling" of the noticing.

Yes and that labelling is something that definately would come under the definition of conceptuality, however the labelling is optional and in my understanding a temporary aid in vipassana techniques.

Yes.