Concepts

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9770
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Concepts

Post by Ceisiwr »

Greetings everyone

Ven. Nanananda taught the following:
“Attributing a reality to whatever concept that comes up, the worldlings create for themselves perceptions of permanence, perceptions of the beautiful, and perceptions of self. In other words, they objectify these concepts in terms of craving, conceit and views. That objectification takes the form of some inherent nature attributed to them, such as earthiness, deva-hood (etc.).
But as for the non-manifestative consciousness, it is free from the so-called natures that delude the worldlings. In the consciousness of the arahants, there is not that infatuation with regard to the mass of concepts which the worldlings imagine as real, in order to keep going this drama of existence.
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... ev_1.1.pdf


What are your thoughts on this teaching?
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
SteRo
Posts: 3549
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: अ धीः

Re: Concepts

Post by SteRo »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:01 pm Greetings everyone

Ven. Nanananda taught the following:
“Attributing a reality to whatever concept that comes up, the worldlings create for themselves perceptions of permanence, perceptions of the beautiful, and perceptions of self. In other words, they objectify these concepts in terms of craving, conceit and views. That objectification takes the form of some inherent nature attributed to them, such as earthiness, deva-hood (etc.).
He speaks like a Theravadin. May he speak like a Theravadin I think I can translate it into the dhamma language I am used to.
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:01 pm
Ven. Nanananda taught the following:
But as for the non-manifestative consciousness, it is free from the so-called natures that delude the worldlings. In the consciousness of the arahants, there is not that infatuation with regard to the mass of concepts which the worldlings imagine as real, in order to keep going this drama of existence.
"non-manifestative consciousness" is speculative fabrication, his concept that he might objectivy and attribute some inherent nature to it.
Exhaling अ and inhaling धीः amounts to བྷྲཱུཾ་བི་ཤྭ་བི་ཤུད་དྷེ
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9770
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Concepts

Post by Ceisiwr »

"non-manifestative consciousness" is speculative fabrication, his concept that he might objectivy and attribute some inherent nature to it.
I’ve not read him attributing “inherent nature” to it. He’s always been clear that we need to see through concepts instead of grasping them.
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 7407
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Concepts

Post by Sam Vara »

It seems to be looking at the Mediaeval scholastic debate between realists and nominalists through Buddhist eyes.

Our man Gotama was a nominalist.
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: Bear Republic

Re: Concepts

Post by Polar Bear »

Sam Vara wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:03 pm It seems to be looking at the Mediaeval scholastic debate between realists and nominalists through Buddhist eyes.

Our man Gotama was a nominalist.
I tend to think of the Buddha as nominalist but he may be a realist about certain laws of nature, at least according to some texts. We also don’t know what he thought about the ontological status of numbers and other abstract objects, although dhammas are treated as the external sensory objects that contact the mind, so realism regarding abstract objects is perhaps arguable. There’s also a possibility that the Buddha is neither an extreme realist nor an extreme nominalist but believes that universals derive their existence from particulars and that particulars derive their natures from universals in some kind of “two sheaves of reeds” non-problematized seemingly infinite regress sorta way, to put it crudely.
“Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are impermanent.’

Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are suffering.’

Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’” - https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato
:anjali:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
JohnK
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Concepts

Post by JohnK »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:01 pm Ven. Nanananda taught the following:
...the mass of concepts which the worldlings imagine as real, in order to keep going this drama of existence.
Ah, sounds like he is talking about some threads here at, uh, Drama Wheel.
Sorry, that's what popped into mind, I couldn't resist. :)
:focus:
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9770
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Concepts

Post by Ceisiwr »

JohnK wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 3:43 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:01 pm Ven. Nanananda taught the following:
...the mass of concepts which the worldlings imagine as real, in order to keep going this drama of existence.
Ah, sounds like he is talking about some threads here at, uh, Drama Wheel.
Sorry, that's what popped into mind, I couldn't resist. :)
:focus:

:jumping:
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8980
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Concepts

Post by DooDoot »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:01 pm Greetings everyone... What are your thoughts on this teaching?
Sure.
“Attributing a reality to whatever concept that comes up, the worldlings create for themselves perceptions of permanence, perceptions of the beautiful, and perceptions of self.
The above appears to say 'concepts' arise before 'perception', which appears contrary to the suttas. MN 18, for example.
In other words, they objectify these concepts in terms of craving, conceit and views.
The above appears to say 'concepts' arise before 'craving', which appears contrary to the suttas.
DN 22 wrote:"Eye-contact... Ear-contact... Nose-contact... Tongue-contact... Body-contact... Intellect-contact...

"Feeling born of eye-contact... Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact...

"Perception of forms... Perception of sounds... Perception of smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... Perception of ideas...

"Intention for forms... Intention for sounds... Intention for smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... Intention for ideas...

"Craving for forms... Craving for sounds... Craving for smells... Craving for tastes... Craving for tactile sensations... Craving for ideas...

Thought directed at forms... Thought directed at sounds... Thought directed at smells... Thought directed at tastes... Thought directed at tactile sensations... Thought directed at ideas...

"Evaluation of forms... Evaluation of sounds... Evaluation of smells... Evaluation of tastes... Evaluation of tactile sensations... Evaluation of ideas seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world. That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells.
:alien:
That objectification takes the form of some inherent nature attributed to them, such as earthiness, deva-hood (etc.).
Again, sounds contrary to the suttas. The suttas refer to certain (impermanent & selfless) natures as "earth", "gods", etc.
But as for the non-manifestative consciousness,it is free from the so-called natures that delude the worldlings.
It seems the teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness" is that which might delude the worldlings. The teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness" was given to Brahmas and Brahmans and none of them got enlightened. The teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness" is about a consciousness without nama-rupa, which is contrary to the core suttas. It seems possibly the teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness", given to Brahmans, is in the language of Brahmins. Brahmins are "worldlings".
In the consciousness of the arahants, there is not that infatuation with regard to the mass of concepts which the worldlings imagine as real, in order to keep going this drama of existence.
Sure. Arahants are without "infatuation" but they are not without concepts. If Arahants were without concepts, they could not think, speak or teach.
Sujato Monk wrote:Viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ

‘Consciousness non-manifest, infinte, radiant all around.’

This is sometimes said to be a term for Nibbana, although since it is an obscure poetic passage of dubious meaning we should not infer any major conclusions from it.

https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13 ... E2%80%99t/
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Concepts

Post by AlexBrains92 »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:18 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:01 pm Greetings everyone... What are your thoughts on this teaching?
Sure.
“Attributing a reality to whatever concept that comes up, the worldlings create for themselves perceptions of permanence, perceptions of the beautiful, and perceptions of self.
The above appears to say 'concepts' arise before 'perception', which appears contrary to the suttas. MN 18, for example.
In other words, they objectify these concepts in terms of craving, conceit and views.
The above appears to say 'concepts' arise before 'craving', which appears contrary to the suttas.
DN 22 wrote:"Eye-contact... Ear-contact... Nose-contact... Tongue-contact... Body-contact... Intellect-contact...

"Feeling born of eye-contact... Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact...

"Perception of forms... Perception of sounds... Perception of smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... Perception of ideas...

"Intention for forms... Intention for sounds... Intention for smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... Intention for ideas...

"Craving for forms... Craving for sounds... Craving for smells... Craving for tastes... Craving for tactile sensations... Craving for ideas...

Thought directed at forms... Thought directed at sounds... Thought directed at smells... Thought directed at tastes... Thought directed at tactile sensations... Thought directed at ideas...

"Evaluation of forms... Evaluation of sounds... Evaluation of smells... Evaluation of tastes... Evaluation of tactile sensations... Evaluation of ideas seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world. That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells.
:alien:
That objectification takes the form of some inherent nature attributed to them, such as earthiness, deva-hood (etc.).
Again, sounds contrary to the suttas. The suttas refer to certain (impermanent & selfless) natures as "earth", "gods", etc.
But as for the non-manifestative consciousness,it is free from the so-called natures that delude the worldlings.
It seems the teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness" is that which might delude the worldlings. The teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness" was given to Brahmas and Brahmans and none of them got enlightened. The teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness" is about a consciousness without nama-rupa, which is contrary to the core suttas. It seems possibly the teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness", given to Brahmans, is in the language of Brahmins. Brahmins are "worldlings".
In the consciousness of the arahants, there is not that infatuation with regard to the mass of concepts which the worldlings imagine as real, in order to keep going this drama of existence.
Sure. Arahants are without "infatuation" but they are not without concepts. If Arahants were without concepts, they could not think, speak or teach.
Sujato Monk wrote:Viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ

‘Consciousness non-manifest, infinte, radiant all around.’

This is sometimes said to be a term for Nibbana, although since it is an obscure poetic passage of dubious meaning we should not infer any major conclusions from it.

https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13 ... E2%80%99t/
For Ven. Nyanananda, being namarupa understood as name-and-form, namarupa is a concept ("dog", "tree"...) and it is before craving.
However it doesn't seem to me that anyone here claims that arahants no longer think at all.
I think we all agree that arahants don't cling to concepts.
https://suttacentral.net/sn1.25/en/bodhi
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8980
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Concepts

Post by DooDoot »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:36 amFor Ven. Nyanananda, being namarupa understood as name-and-form, namarupa is a concept ("dog", "tree"...) and it is before craving.
Yes. Very problematic with "dog" arising before sense contact and also particularly when considering Buddhist nama-rupa is defined as:
Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .ntbb.html
The namarupa meaning 'name-form' or 'naming-forms' is definitely Brahminism/Hinduism (here). I recall one passage in the Vedas provides the analogy of: "a father naming the form of his son". Therefore, in suttas spoken to Brahmins, such as SN 7.6, MN 49 & DN 11, it makes sense according to reality that nama-rupa retains its Brahministic meaning. Thus, when MN 49 & DN 11 refer to a luminous consciousness where nama-rupa cease, yes, this makes logical sense. But this nama-rupa is not the Buddhist nama-rupa. In Buddhist terminology, consciousness & namarupa are mutually dependent. Most Buddhist scholar, including Ven. Nyanananda, Bhikkhu Bodhi & Sujato, might possibly have too much cognitive dissonance to engage in the flexibility of analysis I have engaged in. :mrgreen: Translating 'namarupa' in two different ways, dependent on the context, appears too difficult or adventurous for them. Bhikkhu Bodhi had his drama in his intro of his SN, where he described how he decided to change from 'mentality-materiality' (in his MN) to 'name-form' in his SN. At least Ven. Sujato had the good sense to declare 'viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃa' a state of samadhi.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Concepts

Post by AlexBrains92 »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:31 am
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:36 amFor Ven. Nyanananda, being namarupa understood as name-and-form, namarupa is a concept ("dog", "tree"...) and it is before craving.
Yes. Very problematic, particularly when considering Buddhist nama-rupa is defined as:
Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .ntbb.html
The namarupa meaning 'name-form' or 'naming-forms' is definitely Brahminism/Hinduism (here). I recall one passage in the Vedas refers to it as "a father naming his son". Therefore, in suttas spoken to Brahmins, such as SN 7.6, MN 49 & DN 11, it makes sense according to reality that nama-rupa retains its Brahministic meaning. Thus, when MN 49 & DN 11 refer to a luminous consciousness where nama-rupa cease, yes, this makes logical sense. But this nama-rupa is not the Buddhist nama-rupa. In Buddhist terminology, consciousness & namarupa are mutually dependent. Most Buddhist scholar, including Ven. Nyanananda, Bhikkhu Bodhi & Sujato, have too much cognitive dissonance to engage in the flexibility of analysis I have engaged in. :mrgreen:
Even translating namarupa as "mentality-materiality", these things in pair still describe the concept of a person.
Last edited by AlexBrains92 on Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8980
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Concepts

Post by DooDoot »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:54 am the concept of a person.
the concept of a person sounds like visatto. Satto appears to be an aspect of jati.
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti? Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.
In SN 12.12, when it is asked: "Who senses, who feels, who craves & who attaches?", the Buddha replies these questions are invalid.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Concepts

Post by AlexBrains92 »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:58 am
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:54 am the concept of a person.
the concept of a person sounds like visatto. Satto appears to be an aspect of jati.
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti? Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.
You are considering "concept" and "clinging" to be the same. So it is you who claim that with cessation of clinging there is also cessation of thinking :)
Don't confuse "concept" with "conceit".
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8980
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Concepts

Post by DooDoot »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:05 pm You are considering "concept" and "clinging" to be the same.
No. All clinging involves thinking. But not all thinking is clinging.
AlexBrains92 wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:05 pm So it is you who claims that with cessation of clinging there is also cessation of thinking
No way. Its not me. I promise! :) Its Bhikkhu Bodhi!
VBB wrote:Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings, contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing) cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go). Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling (think about :mrgreen: ) to anything in the world. When he does not cling (think about), he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, there is no more coming to any state of being.’ Briefly, it is in this way, ruler of gods, that a bhikkhu is liberated in the destruction of craving, one who has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate security from bondage, the ultimate holy life, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost among gods and humans.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Bhik ... _Sutta.htm
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Spiny Norman
Posts: 7619
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Concepts

Post by Spiny Norman »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:01 pm Greetings everyone

Ven. Nanananda taught the following:
“Attributing a reality to whatever concept that comes up, the worldlings create for themselves perceptions of permanence, perceptions of the beautiful, and perceptions of self. In other words, they objectify these concepts in terms of craving, conceit and views. That objectification takes the form of some inherent nature attributed to them, such as earthiness, deva-hood (etc.).
But as for the non-manifestative consciousness, it is free from the so-called natures that delude the worldlings. In the consciousness of the arahants, there is not that infatuation with regard to the mass of concepts which the worldlings imagine as real, in order to keep going this drama of existence.
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... ev_1.1.pdf


What are your thoughts on this teaching?
What's his point here? I find Nanananda's flowery prose convoluted and mostly unintelligible, and I don't understand his popularity.
Let's criticise all commentaries equally.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply