With right awareness any object is right object

[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

[Kenshou]

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?

I can't speak for the abhidhamma and commentaries. However as I've said before, though you aren't going to find the word concept used in the same way as we use it in the suttas as far as I have ever seen, I think there's adequate enough reason to place concepts among or as closely related to fabrication.

The keyword is "think" though, how exactly I understand something probably changes by the day.

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.

I'm definitely not advocating pondering over mental baggage. I'm not concerned with the content, but the conditions for the arising and passing away of (what are perceived as) conceptual fabrications in general.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I'm definitely not advocating pondering over mental baggage. I'm not concerned with the content, but the conditions for the arising and passing away of (what are perceived as) conceptual fabrications in general.

And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in mental objects?

....

"Thus he lives contemplating mental object in mental objects, internally, or he lives contemplating mental object in mental objects, externally, or he lives contemplating mental object in mental objects, internally and externally. He lives contemplating origination-things in mental objects, or he lives contemplating dissolution-things in mental objects, or he lives contemplating origination-and-dissolution-things in mental objects. Or his mind is established with the thought: 'Mental objects exist,' to the extent necessary for just knowledge and remembrance and he lives independent and clings to naught in the world.

MN 10: Satipatthana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .soma.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi Kenshou,

I can't speak for the abhidhamma and commentaries. However as I've said before, though you aren't going to find the word concept used in the same way as we use it in the suttas as far as I have ever seen, I think there's adequate enough reason to place concepts among or as closely related to fabrication.

The keyword is "think" though, how exactly I understand something probably changes by the day.

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.

I'm definitely not advocating pondering over mental baggage. I'm not concerned with the content, but the conditions for the arising and passing away of (what are perceived as) conceptual fabrications in general.

Well, perhaps we actually agree. My point was that in passages such as the ones I and Retro's have provided conceptual content is not the object of contemplation, the process is the object. As I have said, I would be very interested to see an example where contemplation of the content of the concepts was used for insight.

Mike

[Kenshou]

In order to understand the coming and going of conceptual fabrications, it is necessary to look at their content only insofar as it is relevant to seeing the processes which produce them in general. I don't believe that the content is what's important for the gaining of liberating insight, nevertheless the content must be understood well enough to see clearly how it is that the comingling of mental factors and processes works. Which doesn't require getting caught up in the content, only recognizing what it is to a basic general degree in order to understand the composition of the fabricated thing in question.

So I'm trying to say that the content of conceptual fabrications is not 100% irrelevant, but the relevancy it does have is not due to what the content represents in of itself.

[dhamma follower]

But the packages of mental activity and association, which I choose to label a concept, do arise and pass away.

Apparently you have a different concept of what is a concept than what is defined in the Teachings and for other people here.

(I will not take the example of "country" since it's a abstract concept and therefore, there's no question for the mind to take it as object, because it is not tangible nor visible, so the mind can only take the process of making it up as objects, and what it can be aware of is sounds, colors, feelings etc... which are paramatha.)

Let's take the exemple of the concept "a house":

When eye consciousness meets the object that we call "house", there's a whole set of processing happening: it regcognizes the shape, finds in the memory store, regcognizes the features, finds in the memory store again...then word processing and so on. The result of that "checking" is: "rectangular", "windows", "roof",.... and : "a house", all of that happens in a milisecond.

As it has been mentioned before, there are two "things" here:
- the mind processing
- the result of that processing

The first one belongs to what is defined as paramatha
The second belongs to what is defined as concept.

In this case, do you make a package of these two and call it concept also?

The Teaching makes a distinction of these two because it is very important, whether you tell people to observe the house or the seeing: If you pay attention to the seeing, you are at the beginning of the mind process. If you pay attention to the house, you are at the end of the process (result). If your awareness can really catch the seeing, that's wisdom at work, no "I' making. When the attention is directed to the seeing, there's a chance for them to see rise and fall of the seeing [consciousness]. When the attention is directed to the house, either the mind will get caught in proliferation about the house (the content) and eventually wanders to other objects , or (with much lower probability) will get a nimitta of the house, meaning a mental image. As long as your mind stays on that mental image, you can not see rise and fall. Only when the mind turns its attention to the act of seeing or seeing consciousness , then rise and fall can be experienced. So again mental image is a concept, seeing consciousness is paramatha.

So may be you don't care what the Teachings say about paramatha and concepts, but it is an extremely important issue to explain to people how to practice and what to make sense of their experiences. Otherwise, if would not have been such a fundamental part in Buddhist texts for over tow thousand years.

D.F

P.S: The bellow is quite relevant to what is being discussed:

Concepts are certainly unreal. People doubt this but they can prove it to themself if there is direct insight. That is what the development of satipatthana reveals - that it is only ignorance that takes concepts for realities. As the Abhidhammathasangaha says about concepts like human, person, man, chariot that
QUOTE
"All such different things , though they do not exist in the ultimate sense , become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of ultimate things (paramattha dhammas)"(bodhi p.326)
Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different cittas and cetasikas all arising and passing away rapidly. These are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. Let us consider a couple of [examples of] thinking.

1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. The object of this thinking is a concept, not real.

2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not real.

3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept.

Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by.

Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas directly even during the processes of thinking that take concepts for objects.

Now there is thinking happening that is trying to comprehend what was just read. The process of thinking is real and it might be rooted in lobha (desire) that wants to understand. The lobha is real - is it seen as just a dhamma , not you. There is also feeling; if you liked what was written this will be pleasant feeling - is it seen as just a conditioned dhamma, not you. And if you didn't like it there was unpleasant feeling, not you. These present objects must be seen wisely otherwise there will always be doubt and one will not gain confidence. Or one will settle for attachment to the Dhamma rather than insight. Or worse become someone whose aim is to look for little flaws thinking that this is proper investigation.

and

k: In the first place, in the sutta, there is no mention that concepts can not be objects of satipatthana. the position that concepts cannot be objects of satipatthana is in Abhidhamma and not in Sutta. I have not seen in what Buddha said that only paramattha are objects of satipatthana. Hence where is the inconsistency. Does Abhidhamma rejects concepts as objects in Satipatthana and on what basis is the objection derive from?

QUOTE
Is it just because concepts are not paramathas? Then we got to ask, where does objects derived from?


You are right to say that the sutta doesn't appear to explicitly say that concepts cannot be objects of satipatthana. I will give you a list of reasons why saying that only "paramatha" dhammas are objects of satipatthana *may* be a plausible explanation:

1) If something is not even there, then it cannot have impermanence or falling-away as its characteristics

2) Howard coined "concepts" as "mental constructs." Without the repetition of the mind door processes, mental constructs cannot be experienced. All paramatha characteristics are experienced relatively immediately after the brief existence of the object. There are definitely differences when we consider "feelings", as compared to "freedom": what's the difference? One has its conditioned characteristics that can be directly experienced, where the other we have to think a little to understand what it means. One may have a hard time explaining to a person from another culture the concept of freedom, but I am sure one has less problem explaining feelings.

3) A good portion of the teachings in the sutta mention the 5 kandhas, 12 ayatanas, and 18 dhatus, all explained in the commentaries and the abhidhamma as being paramatha realities.

4) There are 84,000 headings in the tipitakas. Over 40,000 are in the abhidhamma. Unless you don't believe in the authenticity of the abhidhamma, then you have to consider why even doubling the volume by extremely intricate and detailed explanation of the "realities" if about half is already enough to allow all beings to understand the essence of the teachings.

5) Of course, we shouldn't stick to book knowledge and our own belief of what the teachings mean. There are realities arising now. What are the differences between experiencing the 5 kandhas and concepts?

more of this can be found at http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=79" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kenshou]

Thanks for the thorough explanation.

When eye consciousness meets the object that we call "house", there's a whole set of processing happening: it regcognizes the shape, finds in the memory store, regcognizes the features, finds in the memory store again...then word processing and so on. The result of that "checking" is: "rectangular", "windows", "roof",.... and : "a house", all of that happens in a milisecond.

Yes, this isn't really different than how I understand it...

In this case, do you make a package of these two and call it concept also?

No, however I believe I have expressed why I believe they are both important.

As for,

If your awareness can really catch the seeing, that's wisdom at work, no "I' making. When the attention is directed to the seeing, there's a chance for them to see rise and fall of the seeing [consciousness]

And,

When the attention is directed to the house, either the mind will get caught in proliferation about the house (the content) and eventually wanders to other objects

I'm not so sure that these things are necessarily mutually exclusive.

So may be you don't care what the Teachings say about paramatha and concepts, but it is an extremely important issue to explain to people how to practice and what to make sense of their experiences.

If one is an Abhidhammika, that is. This is one way of making sense of things, to each his own. To put it politely, I do not prefer it.

[mikenz66]

Hi Kenshou,

Thanks for the thorough explanation.

When eye consciousness meets the object that we call "house", there's a whole set of processing happening: it regcognizes the shape, finds in the memory store, regcognizes the features, finds in the memory store again...then word processing and so on. The result of that "checking" is: "rectangular", "windows", "roof",.... and : "a house", all of that happens in a milisecond.

Yes, this isn't really different than how I understand it...
....
If one is an Abhidhammika, that is. This is one way of making sense of things, to each his own. To put it politely, I do not prefer it.

Perhaps you could explain how you do understand it in terms of what is in the Suttas? In the Suttas we find all sorts of descriptions of visual objects,eye consciousness, contact, perception, etc, etc.

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

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

Not my favourite translation, but it's not so different from what Dhamma Follower wrote...


Mike

[Kenshou]

Perhaps you could explain how you do understand it in terms of what is in the Suttas? In the Suttas we find all sorts of descriptions of visual objects,eye consciousness, contact, perception, etc, etc.

This is probably my fault on account of sloppiness, but I did not mean to imply by saying that I do not prefer Abhidhamma that I consider everything single bit of the Abhidhamma to be useless and wrong.

On the contrary,

Not my favourite translation, but it's not so different from what Dhamma Follower wrote...

Yeah, I think so too. However, I think where I disagree primarily is in the implications drawn from it.

[mikenz66]

Hi Kenshou,

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I'm trying not be be too argumentative, though unfortunately that's the nature of such a discussion. I think this topic raises a lot of interesting points that are really important in to practice.

Not my favourite translation, but it's not so different from what Dhamma Follower wrote...

Yeah, I think so too. However, I think where I disagree primarily is in the implications drawn from it.

Fair enough, but perhaps you could try to explain what conclusions you draw from passages like that, and how you see it relating to your practice. For me, with my practice with my teachers, I see some glimpses (not particularly clearly, and only after some retreat time) of how these processes involving contact, feeling, persception, proliferation, etc. work. My teachers (and others I trust) are adamant that dwelling on that proliferation for any longer than it takes to see that there is thinking happening will get me nowhere: It is not useful to get distracted into thinking about: "Where did that feeling come from?"; "Who am I angry at?"; and so on (unless they are so distracting that I *have* to deal with them to be able to maintain calm and mindfulness).
As far as I can tell, this advice matches my reading of Suttas, Abhidhamma, and Commentaries, and other teachers who I have read or listen to on recordings.

From your previous posts, perhaps your view is not so different, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Mike

[Kenshou]

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I'm trying not be be too argumentative, though unfortunately that's the nature of such a discussion. I think this topic raises a lot of interesting points that are really important in to practice.

My thoughts exactly. These discussions are how understanding is refined, that's why I even bother, and I think we've been pretty civil.

My teachers (and others I trust) are adamant that dwelling on that proliferation for any longer than it takes to see that there is thinking happening will get me nowhere: It is not useful to get distracted into thinking about: "Where did that feeling come from?"; "Who am I angry at?"; and so on (unless they are so distracting that I *have* to deal with them to be able to maintain calm and mindfulness).

When it gets down to it, I don't think my view is that different, at least at the start. On one hand, as for establishing mindfulness and concentration in general, I do agree that there's no need to get caught up in the flow of the mind. It's preferable not to at first. And when it comes down to the analysis of mental processes, the content is certainly not important, beyond the extent that is is recognized for what it is and nothing more. I've expressed my opinion on this already.

However, when it gets down to dismantling my personal craving and clinging, I actually do find it useful sometimes to actively engage in the content (when the content is stress-related, that is, not all random mental wandering), to find the root cause of it. I do not try to simply engage in mental proliferation, but to analyze the issue in terms of the 4 noble truths and the origination and cessation of stress. I find this very effective.

If I am having a difficult time establishing mindfulness and concentration, I may employ the standard remedy against the hindrances in question, or I may choose to actively engage the hindrance and seek it's cause, so that I can uproot it. It often works, in and out of meditation time. When I find what thing I'm stupidly clinging to and understand the danger of this clinging, it's not so hard to give it up.

By engaging the content of the mind and finding it's source, I gain insight into my own ignorance, clinging, stress, and how to remove it, and a deeper understanding of the four noble truths as they relate to my own mind. I find the understanding gained in this way to me mutually supportive with the practice of satipatthana, contemplation of the aggregates or 3 characteristics or what have you.

So the truth is that the amount of my effort that actually goes into the engaging of mental content is really in the minority. The majority of time, it is simply allowed to float by ungrasped. But for me it does have it's place, and plays a useful part in the larger path to the cessation of dukkha.