Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:In which sutta does it say that a concept is an object of mind-conciousness?
In the Kalakarama Sutta (Nanananda transaltion), the Tathagatha explains of himself that...
He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about one who cognizes.

Thus, monks, the Tathagata being such-like in regard to all phenomena seen, heard, sensed, and cognized is 'such'.
In setting himself apart in this way, the Tathagata infers that puthujjanas do indeed "conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition"... in other words, they birfurcate between "concept" and "reality" like the Sujinites.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:A concept is a "mind-object" when it is a mind object.
And it can be nothing else. There is no "concept" separate from experience of it as a mind object.
As I said, this, I am not touching.
tiltbillings wrote:As for the rest of it. It is kind of unnecessary to quote at length suttas.
Well, when you ask how something is done, this being the forum it is, I quote the Buddha's instruction for how it is done. Quite simple, really. That said, I do endeavour to clip anything out that doesn't seem closely related.[/quote]Just as an aside, while the Buddha describes what is done, it is not necessarily how it is done, as the texts quoted make quite clear.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by ground »

A concept can only arise after having been learned. Learning is connecting a mere experience with an optical (reading, seeing) and/or acoustical (hearing) symbol amended by a universal distorting visualization of the experience. A (learned) concept actually is a memory ready to come into mind once the experiential stimulus occurs.

This "memory coming into mind" is nothing other than the cascade of dependent origination. Therefore "memory" or "concept" arises in dependence on all aggregates.
First there is a "stirring" dependent on form/body which may be called "sankhara". Only if there is attention this "stirring" develops further until it "crystallizes" (implying alleged "concreteness"). If there is contact of mind consciousness perception and feeling and papanca and volitional formations ensue.
The sense bases involved are one or more of the physical senses and the mind base. Mind base entails determining consciousness which necessarily implies "memory".


Kind regards
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by tiltbillings »

TMingyur wrote:A concept can only arise after having been learned. Learning is connecting a mere experience with an optical (reading, seeing) and/or acoustical (hearing) symbol amended by a universal distorting visualization of the experience. A (learned) concept actually is a memory ready to come into mind once the experiential stimulus occurs.

This "memory coming into mind" is nothing other than the cascade of dependent origination. Therefore "memory" or "concept" arises in dependence on all aggregates.
First there is a "stirring" dependent on form/body which may be called "sankhara". Only if there is attention this "stirring" develops further until it "crystallizes" (implying alleged "concreteness"). If there is contact of mind consciousness perception and feeling and papanca and volitional formations ensue.
The sense bases involved are one or more of the physical senses and the mind base. Mind base entails determining consciousness which necessarily implies "memory".


Kind regards
and we can let it go at that.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
retrofuturist wrote:There is no "concept" separate from experience of it as a mind object.
tiltbillings wrote:As I said, this, I am not touching.
Not even touching it in the context of the Kalakarama Sutta? (Perhaps it might be an opportune time to revisit "Magic Of The Mind"?)
tiltbillings wrote:Just as an aside, while the Buddha describes what is done, it is not necessarily how it is done, as the texts quoted make quite clear.
So a small handful of people here seem to say on a regular basis.

Yet, "moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment"... so what more "how it is done" are you looking for?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:In which sutta does it say that a concept is an object of mind-conciousness?
In the Kalakarama Sutta (Nanananda transaltion), the Tathagatha explains of himself that...
He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about one who cognizes.

Thus, monks, the Tathagata being such-like in regard to all phenomena seen, heard, sensed, and cognized is 'such'.
In setting himself apart in this way, the Tathagata infers that puthujjanas do indeed "conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition"... in other words, they birfurcate between "concept" and "reality" like the Sujinites.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Sorry, I don't understand how that addresses my question.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Sorry, I don't understand how that addresses my question.
If you don't, you don't, I guess.

If I find a sutta that explicitly uses the word "concept" (what might the Pali for that be?), I'll bring it here to your topic for consideration.

In the meantime, Ven. Nanananda's "Concept And Reality" might be of interest to you, though I'd rather not go into that here since, as cool as Ven. Nanananda is 8-) , he is not Sutta Pitaka.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by ground »

tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote:A concept can only arise after having been learned. Learning is connecting a mere experience with an optical (reading, seeing) and/or acoustical (hearing) symbol amended by a universal distorting visualization of the experience. A (learned) concept actually is a memory ready to come into mind once the experiential stimulus occurs.

This "memory coming into mind" is nothing other than the cascade of dependent origination. Therefore "memory" or "concept" arises in dependence on all aggregates.
First there is a "stirring" dependent on form/body which may be called "sankhara". Only if there is attention this "stirring" develops further until it "crystallizes" (implying alleged "concreteness"). If there is contact of mind consciousness perception and feeling and papanca and volitional formations ensue.
The sense bases involved are one or more of the physical senses and the mind base. Mind base entails determining consciousness which necessarily implies "memory".


Kind regards
and we can let it go at that.
Or try other descriptions? There are certainly many others possibilies... but that's not the point.

The point is unawareness (ignorance) of thought/concept being such a kind of dependent arising and holding mere experiences to be "really and objectively" this [concept] and categorically different from not-this [concept]. This is actually the beginning of DO: Ignorance -> volitional formations ("impulse", "urge" to determine as "this" [concept]) -> consciousness -> etc. That is dukkha (habitual urge to determine as, i.e. grasping as) perpetuating dukkha (enhancing habits).
[2] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five clinging-aggregates. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five clinging-aggregates? There is the case where a monk [discerns]: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'

"In this way he remains focused internally on the mental qualities in & of themselves, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five clinging-aggregates.

[3] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.)

"In this way he remains focused internally on the mental qualities in & of themselves, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kind regards
Last edited by ground on Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
retrofuturist wrote:There is no "concept" separate from experience of it as a mind object.
tiltbillings wrote:As I said, this, I am not touching.
Not even touching it in the context of the Kalakarama Sutta? (Perhaps it might be an opportune time to revisit "Magic Of The Mind"?)
Why, that is very thoughtful of you to recoomend the book I recommeded to you.
tiltbillings wrote:Just as an aside, while the Buddha describes what is done, it is not necessarily how it is done, as the texts quoted make quite clear.
So a small handful of people here seem to say on a regular basis.
I'd say that they are correct in that assessment. Maybe you could start a new thread explaining in more detail this: If however, the focus was the perception (sanna) on the anicca/anatta/dukkha of the volitional formation itself, then that would lead to insight into the characteristics.

In other words, for insight, it doesn't matter what sankhata-dhamma you are watching (whatever division, sub-division etc.), so long as you are observing its anicca/anatta/dukkha characteristics, as compared to absorbing into the formed object itself.

Yet, "moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment"... so what more are you looking for?
And that happened to you? If not then there is a need for putting the teachings into practice, as it is for most of us.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:
Yet, "moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment"... so what more are you looking for?
And that happened to you? If not then there is a need for putting the teachings into practice
I make no claims, Tilt.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by tiltbillings »

TMingyur wrote: The point is unawareness (ignorance) of thought/concept being such a kind of dependent arising and holding mere experiences to be "really and objectively" this [concept] and categorically different from not-this [concept]. This is actually the beginning of DO: Ignorance -> volitional formations ("impulse", "urge" to determine as "this" [concept]) -> consciousness -> etc. That is dukkha.
I am not arguing with you. Other than awkward English, what you are saying here is fine. And we can move on.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:
Yet, "moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment"... so what more are you looking for?
And that happened to you? If not then there is a need for putting the teachings into practice
I make no claims, Tilt.
I did not say that you did; however, my point still stands.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: If I find a sutta that explicitly uses the word "concept" (what might the Pali for that be?), I'll bring it here to your topic for consideration.
There probably isn't one. But the point I was trying to make is that a concept (in the sense I'm using it) isn't a simple object.
retrofuturist wrote: In the meantime, Ven. Nanananda's "Concept And Reality" might be of interest to you, though I'd rather not go into that here since, as cool as Ven. Nanananda is 8-) , he is not Sutta Pitaka.
Yes, I've read that. He's a clever scholar.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,

Whether you elect to think that or not is your decision, but this is the "Mental Cultivation in the Sutta Pitaka" sub-forum, and if you are seeking teaching outside the scriptures, then this may not be the section of the forum for it.

Whether you seek it inside or outside the suttas is your prerogative, so I ask that you respect the rights of others to choose for themselves where they seek it.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:There probably isn't one. But the point I was trying to make is that a concept (in the sense I'm using it) isn't a simple object.
Does the mentioning of the idea of a "simple object" infer the counter-idea of a "complex object"? If so, how would you differentiate between them?

(If you deem that's not relevant to your topic, feel free to ignore... I'm just trying to tease out what you're getting at)

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply