Buddhism - Reality, Truth And Developing The Wisdom To Enlightenment | Page 2 | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Buddhism Reality, Truth And Developing The Wisdom To Enlightenment

Nov 15, 2004
408
388
59
Thailand
Bhagat ji,


Quote: Originally Posted by Confused
You deny the very real experiences now
When did I deny them?
In response to Ambarsaria ji’s suggestion that everything is concept, you had written:

Quote: This is half way to realizing who we are. Once we realize every bit of information we pick up is conceptual thus less real than reality, then we can know what is there that is not conceptual that will be the Ultimate Reality.
This meant that you were agreeing with him that all experience through the five senses is conceptual. And I was, and have always maintained that the experience of say, sound by hearing involves realities, one mental, and the other, physical. Therefore to know sound as sound or hearing as hearing is not knowledge about concepts, but about realities.

Now you say that these are less real that reality. So I ask, are the sense experience and their objects concepts or are they realities, or neither of these? If the latter, what are they and why? How are they to be distinguished on one hand, from concept, and on the other, the ultimate reality that you are referring to? And what is this ultimate reality? Is it God? Through which doorway is this experienced and what is its nature?


In fact, I am saying we should study them
Study them, how? If they are not realities, what would it mean to know them for what they are?


and study the one who is studying them,
You refer to a “self” who studies or some particular kind of mental reality? If the latter, what is it, and what is the significance of studying it over any other mental reality?


only when you can get away from concepts can you know what is real now.
There is no getting away from concepts and concepts are not a problem in anyway. Without concepts you will not be able to guide anyone or be guided, indeed you wouldn't even be able to move a finger or sit down. Conceiving is part of the natural order of consciousness. You don't get away from concepts, but understand the realities such as thinking or any attachment, aversion, ignorance, kindness, compassion and so on which accompanies the thinking.


Take them seriously! But do not become engrossed in them for they are not as real as that which they represent.
So you are saying that the experiences through the five senses and their objects are not ultimate realities and that they represent the ultimate reality.
Please tell me what this ultimate reality is and how these five sense experience and their objects related to and represent this reality?
 

chazSingh

Writer
SPNer
Feb 20, 2012
1,644
1,641
Of course, once you take these two, creator and creation, for real, giving values to one is giving value to the other. And you are suggesting that the opposite of creator is creation?....
creation = created....sustained.....destroyed....i.e. temporary
creator = permanent

would you say it's the opposite?

attached to creation...we forgot the permanent.
after experiencing many aspects in duality...we start to yearn wanting to return...love from god starts calling us back. When we return...we arrive with 'knowing' god deeper, we 'understand' god deeper and at the same time...god (One) through the creation and experience of many (us/souls) learns more about himself....but when we go past all intellect, logic...we enter the world of the one...and we'll probably realise we were the 'one' all along...

just my thoughts.

god bless.
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 25, 2006
2,921
1,646
Bhagat ji,

This meant that you were agreeing with him that all experience through the five senses is conceptual.
No this is sense experience but it is shoved in our conceptual framework as soon as it is picked up. Weakening the hold of a conceptual framework and then taking in the sense experience for what it is, is another matter.
And I was, and have always maintained that the experience of say, sound by hearing involves realities, one mental, and the other, physical. Therefore to know sound as sound or hearing as hearing is not knowledge about concepts, but about realities.
Yeah I agree with that.

Now you say that these are less real that reality.
Ok so conceptual is less real than sense experience and sense experience is less real than reality. Sense experience is changing moment to moment. But there's a current running through them that is unchanging.

How are they to be distinguished on one hand, from concept, and on the other, the ultimate reality that you are referring to?
Sense experience can be distinguished from concepts through meditation on the sense experience and meditation on concepts and going deeper into each one. And you realize those are distinct, they don't always overlap.

The reality cannot be distinguished from these as it includes these. The reality is known by it's own accord. You have no way of knowing it through any kind of effort.

And what is this ultimate reality? Is it God? Through which doorway is this experienced and what is its nature?
You'll have to find out on your own. I cannot describe it to you. If I were to start we'd get nowhere. Maybe I have already started and you missed... you don't know till you know it.

Study them, how? If they are not realities, what would it mean to know them for what they are?
I never said they are not real. They are less real. I have clarified above.
You refer to a “self” who studies or some particular kind of mental reality? If the latter, what is it, and what is the significance of studying it over any other mental reality?
Everything is a mental reality. Study it all. To more you study the more there is to be studied.

There is no getting away from concepts and concepts are not a problem in anyway. Without concepts you will not be able to guide anyone or be guided, indeed you wouldn't even be able to move a finger or sit down. Conceiving is part of the natural order of consciousness. You don't get away from concepts, but understand the realities such as thinking or any attachment, aversion, ignorance, kindness, compassion and so on which accompanies the thinking.
Exactly. peacesign
how these five sense experience and their objects related to and represent this reality?
They are a perception of the reality, like light and heat are sense experience of fire. This is conceptual:
 
Nov 15, 2004
408
388
59
Thailand
Bhagat ji,


This meant that you were agreeing with him that all experience through the five senses is conceptual.

No this is sense experience but it is shoved in our conceptual framework as soon as it is picked up. Weakening the hold of a conceptual framework and then taking in the sense experience for what it is, is another matter.
Very strange theory, one which I’m guessing was spun only recently, perhaps even in the course of this very discussion.

How do you know that thinking immediately follows upon sense experiences? If this is the case, what makes you believe that the so-called “conceptual framework” is not followed by more concepts? And how can it be weakened and by what, by mindfulness and wisdom? If there can be mindfulness and wisdom at the level of thinking, why not immediately following upon a sense experience? And what does it mean by weakening the hold of conceptual framework? How does a concept even “hold” anything? Besides how is it possible for anything to be known for “what it is” long after it has fallen away, re: the idea that the sense experience is known after the thinking that follows it has been weakened. Or are you suggesting that the sense experience has not in fact fallen away but remains at the background behind the thinking process, such that the conceptual process being weakened is akin to clouds that were blocking the sun, are blown away?


Quote: And I was, and have always maintained that the experience of say, sound by hearing involves realities, one mental, and the other, physical. Therefore to know sound as sound or hearing as hearing is not knowledge about concepts, but about realities.

Yeah I agree with that.
I await your answers to the above question to find out if this is really the case.


Quote: Now you say that these are less real that reality.

Ok so conceptual is less real than sense experience and sense experience is less real than reality. Sense experience is changing moment to moment. But there's a current running through them that is unchanging.
You mean sense experiences and their objects do not actually fall away, but only change constantly?
I think even science will disagree with you. According to science, no two moments are the same in terms of both the observer as well as that which is observed, isn't it?


Quote: How are they to be distinguished on one hand, from concept, and on the other, the ultimate reality that you are referring to?

Sense experience can be distinguished from concepts through meditation on the sense experience and meditation on concepts and going deeper into each one. And you realize those are distinct, they don't always overlap.
Sounds like more theories being conjured up just for the occasion.
I wasn’t asking about the method, but the difference in nature between sense experiences and their objects vs. the concepts and vs. the ultimate reality.

You say that there is meditation on sense experience and there is meditation on concepts. By virtue of what would these be the same in terms of function? You make a general reference to “meditation” without saying what exactly it is. Or is this similar to the idea that “all paths lead to the same goal”, so meditation likewise, include all the practices by the different religions? Therefore whether it is Zen meditation, or any of the several kinds taught by both the Mahayana as well as the Theravada Buddhists of today, or you do Simran, Seva, or the Sufi dance, or sing Hare Rama Hare Krishna, yoga or even take peyote as the American Indians do, it all leads to the same results, right? Also one could just choose an object to concentrate on, such as the breath, a candle flame, Om or the image of Jesus Christ? So maybe even concentrating on Sunny Leone’s breasts would do the trick, perhaps? And I wonder what is revealed each step of the way as one goes deeper and deeper into the latter? ;-)


The reality cannot be distinguished from these as it includes these. The reality is known by it's own accord. You have no way of knowing it through any kind of effort.
So seeing consciousness is not a reality, nor is sound, taste, feeling, thinking, moral restraint, attachment, ignorance, wisdom, kindness, compassion etc. etc. And reality is something that includes everything from form, feeling, perception, consciousness, mental formations on one hand, and my computer, your hair, Ambarsaria ji’s house, Harry ji’s dog and Sunny Leone’s fine body, on the other?

And you are saying that meditation can know sense experience as well as concepts, but it can't know reality. And that this so called “reality” has a mind of its own and will make itself known to whom and when, no one can ever know? Hmm, the strange theories keep issuing forth unhindered.


Quote: And what is this ultimate reality? Is it God? Through which doorway is this experienced and what is its nature?

You'll have to find out on your own. I cannot describe it to you. If I were to start we'd get nowhere. Maybe I have already started and you missed... you don't know till you know it.
What good does this do for me?!
You are asking me to go by concepts which I can’t at any level relate to, and expect that one day I will realize the truth of what they refer to?!! Is this not a blind being led by another blind? Do you not feel any responsibility towards making things clear at the level of theory? You can’t at least tell me which doorway this ultimate reality is experienced through? Why should I not consider this a cop out on your part?


Quote: Study them, how? If they are not realities, what would it mean to know them for what they are?

I never said they are not real. They are less real. I have clarified above.
I know only real and not real. Mental realities such as seeing, touching, thinking, feeling, aversion, kindness and physical realities such as, sound, taste, masculinity are real. Concepts such as keyboard, mutton, flower and house are unreal. The former exhibit individual as well as the general characteristics of impermanence, insubstantiality and non-self and knowable by wisdom / insight, whereas the latter are only objects of thinking without any such characteristics. So what distinguishes something as “less real”?


Quote: You refer to a “self” who studies or some particular kind of mental reality? If the latter, what is it, and what is the significance of studying it over any other mental reality?

Everything is a mental reality. Study it all. To more you study the more there is to be studied.
You mean sound, smell, pressure, nutritive essence are mental realities, and so are, tables, mountains, chimpanzee and TV? And what kind of study are you referring to when you say, “The more you study the more there is to be studied”?


Quote: There is no getting away from concepts and concepts are not a problem in anyway. Without concepts you will not be able to guide anyone or be guided, indeed you wouldn't even be able to move a finger or sit down. Conceiving is part of the natural order of consciousness. You don't get away from concepts, but understand the realities such as thinking or any attachment, aversion, ignorance, kindness, compassion and so on which accompanies the thinking.

Exactly.
But you had suggested earlier, the need to *get away* from concepts. Also I was suggesting above, the need to study realities and not concepts, but you have said that concepts need to be studied as well. Please clarify.


Quote: how these five sense experience and their objects related to and represent this reality?

They are a perception of the reality, like light and heat are sense experience of fire.
You are suggesting that existence of elements as within / part of / characteristic of something else. This, the Buddha, in his Discourse on the Root of Existence has identified as being the perceptions of the mad worldling.
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 25, 2006
2,921
1,646
Bhagat ji,
Very strange theory, one which I’m guessing was spun only recently, perhaps even in the course of this very discussion.
It's ancient.

I don't feel restricted to any particular set of words, as long as they sail my points to you I am fine with them.

Our mind functions using conceptual frameworks. If any description of the mind can be given, it is conceptual framework building entity. Mental activities consist of either correct concepts, incorrect concepts and observation of reality based on these concepts, and further the mind predicates based on it's internal model, i.e. the conceptual framework under which it operates. The conceptual framework involves mental representation of what is perceived. It is a conception of the perception. The perception being sense experience.

These two are woven into each other. Your conception gives rise to your perception and your perception gives rise to your conception. One could also say they both arise simultaneously. Two running threads influencing each other's movement. Who knows which one started running first? All you know is that they are running and their paths are woven into each other.
And how can it be weakened and by what, by mindfulness and wisdom?
This is like asking "how can you get on top of Mt. Everest and by what, by being on top of Mt. Everest?"

The question has not been answered. Wisdom arises in a mind who have won over it's own processes. This is not under anyone's control. All we can do is have the intent of winning over our mental processes, the stronger the intent the more likely we are to climb Mt. Everest.

If there can be mindfulness and wisdom at the level of thinking, why not immediately following upon a sense experience?
Once present, they are always there. And once present they are not longer restricted to any particular conceptual framework or sense experience.

And what does it mean by weakening the hold of conceptual framework?
You believe certain things about reality and you have been accumulating these beliefs from before birth. They shift and change, and transform as you read about Buddha's teachings, as you observe them in daily life, and you speak with others.
Now this is all great because Buddha's teachings is a gold mine and you are the miner that mines the gold in it and little by little you do attain some gold. The gold is wonderful. It gives you something to do, perhaps it gives you a purpose, or whatever you get out of it, you continue to mine this gold. Accumulating it little by little. You work hard for it, and you get the benefit of gold. Maybe you are mining a lot of it, and have more of it than many others you know.

But you must let go of this gold. Keep mining but once you get the gold, give it to someone else and move on to mining more. If you cling to the gold, that would be a strong hold of the conceptual framework. If you let go of the gold you mine and the gold you have already accumulated, then you have successfully weakened the conceptual framework.

are you suggesting that the sense experience has not in fact fallen away but remains at the background behind the thinking process, such that the conceptual process being weakened is akin to clouds that were blocking the sun, are blown away?
No you see the when sense experience "remains at the background" this is part of the mental activities that create the conceptual framework. It is also known as memory.

You mean sense experiences and their objects do not actually fall away, but only change constantly?
They can fall away. When they do it can no longer be called sense experience though. So within the domain of sense experience, it is a running river, constantly changing. As you say: no two moments are the same in terms of both the observer as well as that which is observed
Sounds like more theories being conjured up just for the occasion.
It's a special occasion. :singhbhangra: I love how you say "conjured up" like it's some sort of magic trick. But of course, theories are magic tricks that the mind performs.

You say that there is meditation on sense experience and there is meditation on concepts. By virtue of what would these be the same in terms of function? You make a general reference to “meditation” without saying what exactly it is. Or is this similar to the idea that “all paths lead to the same goal”
Hmm, "all paths lead to the game goal", throw this away it's not helping the discussion.

Meditation as in studying the sense experience and conceptual framework, through observation and mining Buddha's teachings.

And you are saying that meditation can know sense experience as well as concepts, but it can't know reality. And that this so called “reality” has a mind of its own and will make itself known to whom and when, no one can ever know? Hmm, the strange theories keep issuing forth unhindered.
It would appear so.

What good does this do for me?!
You are asking me to go by concepts which I can’t at any level relate to, and expect that one day I will realize the truth of what they refer to?!! Is this not a blind being led by another blind? Do you not feel any responsibility towards making things clear at the level of theory? You can’t at least tell me which doorway this ultimate reality is experienced through? Why should I not consider this a cop out on your part?
I hope I have made things clear in this post. I am actually not asking you to go by anything. You ask me about what I know, and I spill the beans. Do you care about what I have to say?
I know only real and not real. Mental realities such as seeing, touching, thinking, feeling, aversion, kindness and physical realities such as, sound, taste, masculinity are real. Concepts such as keyboard, mutton, flower and house are unreal. The former exhibit individual as well as the general characteristics of impermanence, insubstantiality and non-self and knowable by wisdom / insight, whereas the latter are only objects of thinking without any such characteristics. So what distinguishes something as “less real”?
You are on the right track. What you say is unreal is what I say is less real than what call real.
I am saying what you are calling real is less real than something that is ultimately real.
Real > Sense experience > Conceptual framework

The way to weaken the hold is to go from right to left. So CF is weakened by going deeper in sense experience, sense experience is weakened by going into what is real. I would say one is a Buddha when they have won over the three.

You mean sound, smell, pressure, nutritive essence are mental realities, and so are, tables, mountains, chimpanzee and TV? And what kind of study are you referring to when you say, “The more you study the more there is to be studied”?
Any kind of study you can think of.



But you had suggested earlier, the need to *get away* from concepts. Also I was suggesting above, the need to study realities and not concepts, but you have said that concepts need to be studied as well. Please clarify.
I think I have clarified this now. I can add that you are never actually going to get away from them.

The concepts need to be studied because they are influencing your sense experience, in ways you can only find out by studying them. Going deeper into their interaction would be part of mastering them both.
 
Last edited:
Aug 29, 2010
1,514
1,116
68
Bhagat Singh Ji,

From Gurbanee one learns there is only ONE WISDOM that leads to enlightenment
and that is "GuR GIYANu" The KNOWLEDGE OF GUR.

Prakash.S.Bagga
 

chazSingh

Writer
SPNer
Feb 20, 2012
1,644
1,641
BhagatSingh;176067 No you see the when sense experience "remains at the background" this is part of the mental activities that create the conceptual framework. It is also known as memory.

Meditation as in studying the sense experience and conceptual framework, through observation and mining Buddha's teachings.
I like your posts bhagat ji, they get me contemoplating :)
all i know or am in the process of truely understanding through experience, that sense perception occurs past the physical body, including the brain.
physical body including the brain just collect data...the perception/decoding of this data is all done beyond the physical.

Its amazing the kind of things you start to realise through Simran and deep meditation.

I am saying what you are calling real is less real than something that is ultimately real.
Real > Sense experience > Conceptual framework

The way to weaken the hold is to go from right to left. So CF is weakened by going deeper in sense experience, sense experience is weakened by going into what is real. I would say one is a Buddha when they have won over the three.

you've described this perfectly...sometimes i find it hard to write down things as well as yourself, but the above is exactly how i'm finding the inner journey through deep meditation.


i read somewhere, the physical body (including brain) collects data, the astral body provides sense perception, then beyond that the mind creates all realities, realms, experiences. we just need to strip down all the layers through our meditation....and if we can experience beyond the mind we might just experience the true reality...the permanent reality...the true mastermind.

this explorer menatility is what i think gets me up at amrit vela...during the day the mind wants to use logic, wants to ask a million questions....during amrit vela i try to walk the walk and try to actually learn from experience.

I hope your simran is still going strong :)
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 25, 2006
2,921
1,646
Gur Giyan is confined to the Knowledge of the Words GuRoo/GuRu/GuR and their inter relationship as GuROO-GuR and GuRu-GuR.

Prakash.s.Bagga
Prakash ji,
Please elaborate.
------------------------------------------------
I like your posts bhagat ji, they get me contemoplating :)
Thanks Chaz Singh ji.
we just need to strip down all the layers through our meditation....and if we can experience beyond the mind we might just experience the true reality...the permanent reality...the true mastermind.
I like this imagery of stripping down the mind to get to the core. Peeling layers off of a cabbage. In fact, it is exactly this. What happens when you peel all the layers of a cabbage away? peacesign
 
Aug 29, 2010
1,514
1,116
68
Quote:
Gur Giyan is confined to the Knowledge of the Words GuRoo/GuRu/GuR and their inter relationship as GuROO-GuR and GuRu-GuR.

Prakash.s.Bagga
Prakash ji,
Please elaborate.

Bhagat Singh Ji,
I would request you to refer posts in the thread as
The world of Words by I J Singh ji

Prakash.s.Bagga
 
Nov 15, 2004
408
388
59
Thailand
Bhagat ji,


Very strange theory, one which I’m guessing was spun only recently, perhaps even in the course of this very discussion.
It's ancient.
Which particular teaching? One that originated from the Buddha or someone else?


I don't feel restricted to any particular set of words, as long as they sail my points to you I am fine with them.
Who is talking about the use of words, it is the ideas you set sail that I question.


Our mind functions using conceptual frameworks. If any description of the mind can be given, it is conceptual framework building entity. Mental activities consist of either correct concepts, incorrect concepts and observation of reality based on these concepts, and further the mind predicates based on it's internal model, i.e. the conceptual framework under which it operates. The conceptual framework involves mental representation of what is perceived. It is a conception of the perception. The perception being sense experience.
You need to take care not to mix different experiences up. Perception or memory is a mental reality which accompanies all consciousness, including thinking. It arises with sense experience but together with consciousness and several other mental factors, each performing their individual functions.

What exactly do you mean by the following?

Quote Bhagat: These two are woven into each other. Your conception gives rise to your perception and your perception gives rise to your conception. <end quote>

Please explain to me the process. Better still, point out the ancient text which teaches this.


One could also say they both arise simultaneously. Two running threads influencing each other's movement.
So there are two separate streams of experiences running in parallel? Is this your own theory or from the ancient text that you've read? And you think that this is in line with your own experience?


Who knows which one started running first? All you know is that they are running and their paths are woven into each other.
So there is one chain of experience first and then another following it and these two then influence each other, and would this give rise to a third stream?

Again, a reference to some ancient text would be appreciated.


Quote: And how can it be weakened and by what, by mindfulness and wisdom?
This is like asking "how can you get on top of Mt. Everest and by what, by being on top of Mt. Everest?"
So are you saying that weakening the hold of concepts is not the function of mindfulness and wisdom but that these in fact are the end results? If so, what is it that weakens the hold?


The question has not been answered. Wisdom arises in a mind who have won over it's own processes.
Again, so what exactly works to “win over”, not ignorance and attachment for sure, and you are saying that it is not mindfulness and wisdom either? And please also explain what “winning over” actually means and involve?


This is not under anyone's control. All we can do is have the intent of winning over our mental processes, the stronger the intent the more likely we are to climb Mt. Everest.
But is there any "self" who can either control or not control?
And you are saying that if I *intend* to win over the mental process, the process has already begun? There does not need to be any understanding, just have the intention, regardless of whether this is motivated by ignorance and attachment, by faith, or anything else, it is the Path? All I need then is to be ambitious enough and soon I will get what I want….?


Quote: If there can be mindfulness and wisdom at the level of thinking, why not immediately following upon a sense experience?
Once present, they are always there. And once present they are not longer restricted to any particular conceptual framework or sense experience.
And you have said that mindfulness and wisdom are end results and not the Path….

So what mental factors qualify as Path, intention and something else, or only intention?


Quote: And what does it mean by weakening the hold of conceptual framework?
You believe certain things about reality and you have been accumulating these beliefs from before birth. They shift and change, and transform as you read about Buddha's teachings, as you observe them in daily life, and you speak with others.
So this is what you mean by, "weakening the hold of concepts", namely to change one's interpretations and therefore the framework of one's own thinking. But didn't you at first refer to this weakening in association with the idea that concepts block the vision and therefore must be pushed aside? Anyway, read my comments below.


Now this is all great because Buddha's teachings is a gold mine and you are the miner that mines the gold in it and little by little you do attain some gold. The gold is wonderful. It gives you something to do, perhaps it gives you a purpose, or whatever you get out of it, you continue to mine this gold. Accumulating it little by little. You work hard for it, and you get the benefit of gold. Maybe you are mining a lot of it, and have more of it than many others you know.
Well, if you are talking about the Buddha’s teachings, I must tell you that what he really taught is very different from what you express above.

The first step begins with wisdom at the level of hearing or intellectual understanding. And this actually refers to moments when understanding does arise and not otherwise. This means that if one has one moment of understanding in a day, only that moment counts as being a Buddhist on the Path. At other times, if there are moments of generosity, morality, kindness and so on as a result of being inspired by the Buddha’s teachings, this too is good. However if any of this is taken for “self”, it is opposed to the Dhamma.

Intellectual understanding, direct understanding and realization all must agree with each other. Therefore *the concepts don’t change*. What changes and accumulates is the depth of understanding and other wholesome qualities which must act as support, re: the Perfections. Most notably is the detachment which accompanies each instance of understanding, such that this in fact acts as sign of whether or not one is on the right track.

Your imagery above is therefore misleading. No grasping attitude towards the teachings, as in“mine the gold”, “something to do”, “having a purpose”, “work hard for it” and “get something out of it”. It is about understanding all the way, which as I said, is accompanied by detachment. Understanding leads the way and does not mind whether or not there is opportunity to open a text to read or recording to listen to. More importantly however, it knows that the teachings are all about the reality “now”, which does not require any label / concept to be applied to. Indeed, the distinction between realities vs. concept is the first step to take, and so a person who has only intellectual understanding will know where he is at and what the purpose of studying the teachings is, namely understanding the reality by the characteristic and not just think about it.


But you must let go of this gold.
Detachment is necessary indication from the very first step. If no detachment is associated with the study, then the study must be wrong.


Keep mining but once you get the gold, give it to someone else and move on to mining more. If you cling to the gold, that would be a strong hold of the conceptual framework.
For someone with right understanding even at the intellectual level, there is no need to think about letting go. This is because he knows that detachment comes with understanding itself, and any intention to “let go” short of such understanding must be the result of the influence of attachment to “self”.

In other words, in encouraging that understanding be developed, detachment is implied. On the other hand, when someone says to “let go”, this shows lack of understanding.

Letting go / detachment with the idea of self is a contradiction.


If you let go of the gold you mine and the gold you have already accumulated, then you have successfully weakened the conceptual framework.
Any “holding” would be the function of grasping. Without grasping at the level of sense experience, there'd be no grasping of concepts. The concepts themselves don't do anything. A Buddha conceives of a rose but has no attachment to it, you and I think “rose” not without some level of attachment.


Quote: are you suggesting that the sense experience has not in fact fallen away but remains at the background behind the thinking process, such that the conceptual process being weakened is akin to clouds that were blocking the sun, are blown away?
No you see the when sense experience "remains at the background" this is part of the mental activities that create the conceptual framework. It is also known as memory.
You identify memory of sense experience as akin to the experience existing in the background?

Memory or perception as I said, arises with *all* instance of consciousness.

A concept of visible object is not the visible object itself and must in fact be understood as such. Indeed this can only happen if wisdom arose to understand the sense experience for what it is by its characteristic. It has nothing to do with the fact of memory arising, nor is there a need to stop the thinking process.


Quote: You mean sense experiences and their objects do not actually fall away, but only change constantly?
They can fall away.
They can or they must?! Are they not fleeting in nature? See, you don't even know what I'm referring to.


When they do it can no longer be called sense experience though. So within the domain of sense experience, it is a running river, constantly changing.
What is it exactly that is changing? In one sense process which consists of a series of consciousness, only one of these is the actual experience of seeing, hearing etc. The rest are different types of consciousness performing each their specific functions. Each one of these has a lifespan of something like, a trillionth of a second. So what is it that changes?


As you say: no two moments are the same in terms of both the observer as well as that which is observed
I said this as representative of science. I would not make the kind of statement with regard to the understanding of mental reality and physical reality.


Quote: You say that there is meditation on sense experience and there is meditation on concepts. By virtue of what would these be the same in terms of function? You make a general reference to “meditation” without saying what exactly it is. Or is this similar to the idea that “all paths lead to the same goal”
Hmm, "all paths lead to the game goal", throw this away it's not helping the discussion.
Have you not suggested in many of your discussions, the idea that different set of beliefs / practices can all lead to enlightenment, including apparent opposite ones such as dualism and non-dualism? Have you not stated that much of the difference is only in terminology and culture in which each religion / philosophy arose?


Meditation as in studying the sense experience and conceptual framework, through observation and mining Buddha's teachings.
Wow! You try to cover all the bases.

So there is “studying” and there is “observing”. Are these functions by two different realities (or semi-realities)? And what does “mining” mean? And all this you put under the general idea “meditation”? Or are you in fact referring to some conventional set of activities which include reading / listening to the teachings and sitting to concentrate on something?

But please answer my original question: “By virtue of what would meditation / study of sense experience be the same as that of concepts in terms of function?”

I say that sense experience and their objects are understood by their individual characteristic, each different from the other. Concepts being the product of thinking can only be thought about variously, and this is just more thinking with concepts, not understanding.


Quote: And you are saying that meditation can know sense experience as well as concepts, but it can't know reality. And that this so called “reality” has a mind of its own and will make itself known to whom and when, no one can ever know? Hmm, the strange theories keep issuing forth unhindered.
It would appear so.
So sense experience is not reality. But do explain to me how a concept is known to be concept if not by virtue of understanding what reality is?


Quote: What good does this do for me?!
You are asking me to go by concepts which I can’t at any level relate to, and expect that one day I will realize the truth of what they refer to?!! Is this not a blind being led by another blind? Do you not feel any responsibility towards making things clear at the level of theory? You can’t at least tell me which doorway this ultimate reality is experienced through? Why should I not consider this a cop out on your part?
I hope I have made things clear in this post. I am actually not asking you to go by anything. You ask me about what I know, and I spill the beans. Do you care about what I have to say?
Not with regard to this particular question.

The experience through the five senses and the mind is what everyone experiences. When guiding others, these are therefore the reference points to take. A child would know what I am talking about when I say that seeing sees or hearing hears and thinking thinks. This is because they are the things he himself experiences in the course of his daily life.

But you in denying that these are real, are pointing out to me the existence of an ultimate reality which never forms part of my experience. And my question to you therefore is, which doorway, the five senses and mind, is this ultimate reality experienced through?

Do I care about what you have to say? I do read what you express of course. But yes, if you tell me that you have experienced something which I or someone else has not experienced, I do not give any importance to it.


Quote: I know only real and not real. Mental realities such as seeing, touching, thinking, feeling, aversion, kindness and physical realities such as, sound, taste, masculinity are real. Concepts such as keyboard, mutton, flower and house are unreal. The former exhibit individual as well as the general characteristics of impermanence, insubstantiality and non-self and knowable by wisdom / insight, whereas the latter are only objects of thinking without any such characteristics. So what distinguishes something as “less real”?
You are on the right track. What you say is unreal is what I say is less real than what call real.

I am saying what you are calling real is less real than something that is ultimately real.

Real > Sense experience > Conceptual framework
So what is your definition of “reality”? And please do tell me how this “ultimate reality” that you are referring to is not just an idea / concept?


The way to weaken the hold is to go from right to left. So CF is weakened by going deeper in sense experience, sense experience is weakened by going into what is real. I would say one is a Buddha when they have won over the three.
You still have not answered my question, but let me put it a different way. How is a concept studied whereby it is seen for what it is?

I say that if you suddenly came to understand the distinction between reality and concept, you'd know that sense experience are real and what you call real is only concept. And this is what understanding the Buddha's teachings does. Because what the Dhamma is about and aimed at, is *now* and this now is defined by the characteristic of either a mental or a physical *reality* appearing to consciousness and understood by wisdom. Therefore when thinking about the existence of the so called “ultimate reality”, the consciousness, the perception, the feeling and so on associated with this is what can and must be understood. And when this happens, this conception re: ultimate reality, will be seen to be a fiction and not taken seriously.


Quote: You mean sound, smell, pressure, nutritive essence are mental realities, and so are, tables, mountains, chimpanzee and TV? And what kind of study are you referring to when you say, “The more you study the more there is to be studied”?
Any kind of study you can think of.
If you mean the study of mathematics, science, history, geography, medicine, psychology and G.K., I say that, except for conventional living, these are completely useless. And of course you know what I consider as the only useful study…


The concepts need to be studied because they are influencing your sense experience, in ways you can only find out by studying them. Going deeper into their interaction would be part of mastering them both.
How does the concept of rose influence the experience of visible object by seeing consciousness? Is it not that a newborn animal or human will experience sense objects but have no conception in terms of some “thing”, let alone identify that thing as a rose or a face?
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 25, 2006
2,921
1,646
Bhagat ji,
Which particular teaching? One that originated from the Buddha or someone else?
Did you watch the discussion I linked to between Robert Thurman and Deepak Chopra?

Who is talking about the use of words, it is the ideas you set sail that I question.
You said I came up with a new theory. I said it's merely new set of words for what I have always been saying in our conversations. Now you can question the ideas but know that this isn't anything new. To be new, is not my intention. I am not trying to be new, I am simply conveying the nature of reality as I see it. There are many ways of talking about this. I see you talking about it and I enjoy your posts which in fact lead me to the nature as I read. And there I dwell and reply to your post.


You need to take care not to mix different experiences up. Perception or memory is a mental reality which accompanies all consciousness, including thinking. It arises with sense experience but together with consciousness and several other mental factors, each performing their individual functions.
Well everything is memory but I am specifically talking about memory as what is left after the objects of sense experience are not there. The experience is of the images left by the sense experience. This is memory.

Now I know that every sense experience is a memory in the brain. We perceive is a few milliseconds after it is sensed. But I don't call it memory at this point because I want to differentiate it from the images when no sensing is there. So the latter I would call memory and the former I would call sense experience.


What exactly do you mean by the following?

Quote Bhagat: These two are woven into each other. Your conception gives rise to your perception and your perception gives rise to your conception. <end quote>

Please explain to me the process. Better still, point out the ancient text which teaches this.
By perception I mean sense experience and by conception I mean that which is arising in the mind. So they are connected and influence each other. This perhaps most visible in art.

The conception "Flat earth of personal space"

The perception:


Conception "Earth as spherical object in vast space"
Perception:


Notice how the depiction of Varaha/Boar avatar of God changes with time as our conception changes. We no longer perceive the earth as flat which just includes our city, No the earth is now set amongst the cosmos, it's impersonal.


Conception of depth perception or space.

Cave paintings:


Egyptian paintings:


Mughal paintings of Akbar's time:


Italian renaissance, da Vinci:



Cezanne post-modern, and post-impressionism:


Get a feel for how each artist describes the space in the painting. You can see how each artist's conception of depth leads them to paint the kind of space they do. They actually perceive space as how they conceive it.
For da Vinci, space is mathematically laid out in front of him. It follows certain "rules of perspective" that are the same for everyone. It is stationary and impersonal, set outside vs over here in my head.
Cezanne on the other hand, conceives of space as personal. It changes according to his personal perception of it. both plates are laying flat on the table but Cezanne perceives one in different space than the other.

According to da Vinci, the animals in the cave paintings are standing in a tower formation. but the artist who painted it obviously saw them separated in space. His conception of space was different and thus the perception that was painted was different.

ETC

So there are two separate streams of experiences running in parallel?
They are not separate. but distinctions can be made between them for ease of communication.
So are you saying that weakening the hold of concepts is not the function of mindfulness and wisdom but that these in fact are the end results? If so, what is it that weakens the hold?
Well there is always a little mindfulness and wisdom present in everyone at all the time, and it can be cultivated and grows within the right environment. To climb the mountain to the top you need to climb it.
And you are saying that if I *intend* to win over the mental process, the process has already begun?
There needs to be the intent. What else should be present is less important than intent. Everything fails without it. There could be understanding but without the intent to overcome, that understanding will be dropped the moment it arises. This rule fails when the understanding is overwhelming.

So what mental factors qualify as Path, intention and something else, or only intention?
Path would be the path of understanding, intent would be the driving force to walk that path.

So this is what you mean by, "weakening the hold of concepts", namely to change one's interpretations and therefore the framework of one's own thinking. But didn't you at first refer to this weakening in association with the idea that concepts block the vision and therefore must be pushed aside? Anyway, read my comments below.
No I didn't say it but you read it. You have been reading a lot of things I am not saying.



Well, if you are talking about the Buddha’s teachings, I must tell you that what he really taught is very different from what you express above.
Sure

The first step begins with wisdom at the level of hearing or intellectual understanding. And this actually refers to moments when understanding does arise and not otherwise. This means that if one has one moment of understanding in a day, only that moment counts as being a Buddhist on the Path. At other times, if there are moments of generosity, morality, kindness and so on as a result of being inspired by the Buddha’s teachings, this too is good. However if any of this is taken for “self”, it is opposed to the Dhamma.
So far so good.

Intellectual understanding, direct understanding and realization all must agree with each other. Therefore *the concepts don’t change*. What changes and accumulates is the depth of understanding and other wholesome qualities which must act as support, re: the Perfections. Most notably is the detachment which accompanies each instance of understanding, such that this in fact acts as sign of whether or not one is on the right track.
Still good.

Your imagery above is therefore misleading. No grasping attitude towards the teachings, as in“mine the gold”, “something to do”, “having a purpose”, “work hard for it” and “get something out of it”. It is about understanding all the way, which as I said, is accompanied by detachment. Understanding leads the way and does not mind whether or not there is opportunity to open a text to read or recording to listen to. More importantly however, it knows that the teachings are all about the reality “now”, which does not require any label / concept to be applied to. Indeed, the distinction between realities vs. concept is the first step to take, and so a person who has only intellectual understanding will know where he is at and what the purpose of studying the teachings is, namely understanding the reality by the characteristic and not just think about it.
Well said.

Detachment is necessary indication from the very first step. If no detachment is associated with the study, then the study must be wrong.
Detachment OR attachment to everything. ;)
For someone with right understanding even at the intellectual level, there is no need to think about letting go. This is because he knows that detachment comes with understanding itself, and any intention to “let go” short of such understanding must be the result of the influence of attachment to “self”.
Intention does not mean "thinking about doing this or that". That is not intention, that is just thinking about doing it. Intention is the will to do it. It is spontaneous it arises with everything you do. The things you didn't do, there your intent was weak. So if you didn't let go, your intent to let go was weak. Stronger intent would lead to letting go, which could then lead to understanding.
Sure understanding can complement intent and vice versa, so with correct understanding, you let go and thus your intent grows stronger.

In other words, in encouraging that understanding be developed, detachment is implied. On the other hand, when someone says to “let go”, this shows lack of understanding.
It also shows the lack of detachment.
Letting go / detachment with the idea of self is a contradiction.
Be detached from the idea of agreement and contradiction. These are only valid within the conceptual framework.

I think you fully grasp Buddha's conceptual framework. But you must let go of contradictory notions. Reality is going to appear contradictory to someone who is embedded in a strong conceptual framework.

Now one can, through understanding, break out of that or through intent. Usually it is both.


Any “holding” would be the function of grasping. Without grasping at the level of sense experience, there'd be no grasping of concepts. The concepts themselves don't do anything. A Buddha conceives of a rose but has no attachment to it, you and I think “rose” not without some level of attachment.
The Buddha also has no attachment to His teachings.
They can or they must?! Are they not fleeting in nature? See, you don't even know what I'm referring to.
By falling away I mean they fall away completely. There is now no sense experience. No memory or concepts arising.

What is it exactly that is changing?
Observe for yourself and you'll know. What exactly is changing in a river, as it flows, that is what I am talking about.
Have you not suggested in many of your discussions, the idea that different set of beliefs / practices can all lead to enlightenment, including apparent opposite ones such as dualism and non-dualism? Have you not stated that much of the difference is only in terminology and culture in which each religion / philosophy arose?
Sure I may have said that but how you read what I wrote is a whole different story.

I say that sense experience and their objects are understood by their individual characteristic, each different from the other. Concepts being the product of thinking can only be thought about variously, and this is just more thinking with concepts, not understanding.
Yes


So sense experience is not reality. But do explain to me how a concept is known to be concept if not by virtue of understanding what reality is?
Again sense experience is part of reality. Less real than something which is even more real.
A concept is known to be concept by virtue of understanding reality. Otherwise you never really see that it is merely a concept.
Not with regard to this particular question.
Haha!
The experience through the five senses and the mind is what everyone experiences.
Sure

When guiding others, these are therefore the reference points to take.
Sure
A child would know what I am talking about when I say that seeing sees or hearing hears and thinking thinks.
No don't bring children into this. They don't concern themselves with this. It would simply make no sense to them. The kind of mind that gives rise to this is not shared by all humans and all of the time.

The question here to ask is this: What is that whereby thinking thinks or hearing hear?

That is labelled as "Brahman" in the Upnishads. You may call it X or whatever you want. Knowing it or having the intent to know it will take you out of sense experience. And move you from right to left on this scale. Real > Sense experience > Conceptual framework

1. THE Pupil asks: 'At whose wish does the mind sent forth proceed on its errand? At whose command does the first breath go forth? At whose wish do we utter this speech? What god directs the eye, or the ear?'
2. The Teacher replies: 'It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of speech, the breath of breath, and the eye of the eye. When freed (from the senses) the wise, on departing from this world, become immortal 1.
3. 'The eye does not go thither, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know, we do not understand, how any one can teach it.
4. 'It is different from the known, it is also above the unknown, thus we have heard from those of old, who taught us this 2.
5. 'That which is not expressed by speech and


p. 148
by which speech is expressed, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
6. 'That which does not think by mind, and by which, they say, mind is thought 1, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
7. 'That which does not see by the eye, and by which one sees (the work of) the eyes, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
8. 'That which does not hear by the ear, and by which the ear is heard, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
9. 'That which does not breathe by breath, and by which breath is drawn, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.'
Talavakara Upnishad


But you in denying that these are real, are pointing out to me the existence of an ultimate reality which never forms part of my experience.
It is part of reality, which encapsulates everything, sense experience, conceptual, or lack of them.
And my question to you therefore is, which doorway, the five senses and mind, is this ultimate reality experienced through?
Kabir Ji says
ਗਉੜੀ ॥
Gauree:

ਖਟ ਨੇਮ ਕਰਿ ਕੋਠੜੀ ਬਾਂਧੀ ਬਸਤੁ ਅਨੂਪੁ ਬੀਚ ਪਾਈ ॥
He fashioned the body chamber with six chakras, and placed within it the incomparable thing (soul).

ਕੁੰਜੀ ਕੁਲਫੁ ਪ੍ਰਾਨ ਕਰਿ ਰਾਖੇ ਕਰਤੇ ਬਾਰ ਨ ਲਾਈ ॥੧॥
He made the breath of life the watchman, with lock and key to protect it; the Creator did this in no time at all. ||1||

ਅਬ ਮਨ ਜਾਗਤ ਰਹੁ ਰੇ ਭਾਈ ॥
Keep your mind awake and aware now, O Sibling of Destiny.

ਗਾਫਲੁ ਹੋਇ ਕੈ ਜਨਮੁ ਗਵਾਇਓ ਚੋਰੁ ਮੁਸੈ ਘਰੁ ਜਾਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
You were careless, and you have wasted your life; your home is being plundered by thieves. ||1||Pause||

ਪੰਚ ਪਹਰੂਆ ਦਰ ਮਹਿ ਰਹਤੇ ਤਿਨ ਕਾ ਨਹੀ ਪਤੀਆਰਾ ॥
The five senses stand as guards at the gate, but now can they be trusted?

ਚੇਤਿ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਚਿਤ ਹੋਇ ਰਹੁ ਤਉ ਲੈ ਪਰਗਾਸੁ ਉਜਾਰਾ ॥੨॥
When you are conscious in your consciousness, you shall be enlightened and illuminated. ||2||

ਨਉ ਘਰ ਦੇਖਿ ਜੁ ਕਾਮਨਿ ਭੂਲੀ ਬਸਤੁ ਅਨੂਪ ਨ ਪਾਈ ॥
Seeing the nine openings of the body, the soul-bride is led astray; she does not obtain that incomparable thing.

ਕਹਤੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਨਵੈ ਘਰ ਮੂਸੇ ਦਸਵੈਂ ਤਤੁ ਸਮਾਈ ॥੩॥੨੨॥੭੩॥
Says Kabeer, the nine openings of the body are being plundered; rise up to the Tenth Gate, and discover the true essence. ||3||22||73||


Do I care about what you have to say? I do read what you express of course. But yes, if you tell me that you have experienced something which I or someone else has not experienced, I do not give any importance to it.
Well clearly you have not experienced it nor do I expect you to give it any importance since you have no idea what it is. But if you are curious then I think you will want to find out if there is something which you can experience for yourself that could give you first-hand insights into Buddha teachings.

So what is your definition of “reality”? And please do tell me how this “ultimate reality” that you are referring to is not just an idea / concept?
From Tao Te Ching
1
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.

Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.

Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations

arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.

The gateway to all understanding.

21

The Master keeps her mind
always at one with the Tao;
that is what gives her her radiance.

The Tao is ungraspable.

How can her mind be at one with it?
Because she doesn't cling to ideas.

The Tao is dark and unfathomable.

How can it make her radiant?
Because she lets it.

Since before time and space were,

the Tao is.
It is beyond is and is not.
How do I know this is true?
I look inside myself and see.
 
Last edited:

Luckysingh

Writer
SPNer
Dec 4, 2011
1,633
2,750
Vancouver
Just a few thoughts with regards to all the above.
I seem to believe that thought and reality are two completely separate entities and intertwining them doesn't do us any favours.

-Thought is Maya the illusion.
The reality is the presence and when one is living in hukam (divine will) in this reality.

So it's all about the present 'now' and staying in this presence.
Hukam is experienced in the presence.
Worrying about what will happen tomorrow is a Thought.
This thought is part of maya.

To stay away from unnecesary thought, is staying and living in hukam governed reality.
 
Nov 15, 2004
408
388
59
Thailand
Bhagat ji,


Which particular teaching? One that originated from the Buddha or someone else?
Did you watch the discussion I linked to between Robert Thurman and Deepak Chopra?
I don't like Deepak Chopra, therefore when I opened the video yesterday, after 10 to 12 minutes I stopped. Sorry.


Quote: Who is talking about the use of words, it is the ideas you set sail that I question.
You said I came up with a new theory. I said it's merely new set of words for what I have always been saying in our conversations. Now you can question the ideas but know that this isn't anything new.
You may have expressed the idea before, but I don't remember ever reading you give the kind of description regarding sense experience, concept framework and ultimate reality.


To be new, is not my intention. I am not trying to be new, I am simply conveying the nature of reality as I see it. There are many ways of talking about this. I see you talking about it and I enjoy your posts which in fact lead me to the nature as I read. And there I dwell and reply to your post.
I’d rather that you said simply that you appreciate what you read, than that you have direct understanding of the nature of something while reading my messages. And I wish that I could read your own comments as pointing to present moment realities, but what I keep seeing instead, are expressions of self-view where concepts are taken for real.


Quote: You need to take care not to mix different experiences up. Perception or memory is a mental reality which accompanies all consciousness, including thinking. It arises with sense experience but together with consciousness and several other mental factors, each performing their individual functions.
Well everything is memory but I am specifically talking about memory as what is left after the objects of sense experience are not there. The experience is of the images left by the sense experience. This is memory.
You misconstrue what I wrote.
When I suggested that perception or memory accompanies all consciousness, this didn't mean that all that is experienced is memory. I said that perception is a “mental reality” arising *with* the consciousness. This is saying that consciousness itself is another mental reality, and I'll add here, that there are other mental realities which like perception, accompany the consciousness, such as concentration, intention, feeling and attention. During sense experience, the function of perception is simply to “mark” the object that is being experienced, and when it is thinking, perception marks but at the same time functions also to recall / remember. So not all experiences are based on memory.


Now I know that every sense experience is a memory in the brain. We perceive is a few milliseconds after it is sensed.
You mean that you believe / have come to a reasoned conclusion about. You don't “know” this, as in understanding / wisdom, because what you are referring to are concepts, not realities. Brain is a concept around which science has built a story, and you take all this for real. And taking this for real, you go on to theorize the nature of sense experience such that you end up taking what in fact is a reality with characteristics knowable by wisdom, for concept or less real.


But I don't call it memory at this point because I want to differentiate it from the images when no sensing is there. So the latter I would call memory and the former I would call sense experience.
But according to you, sense experience is based on memory and therefore concept. So you mean the distinction between these two is similar to the difference say, between red and red rose? If so, would this not be just more thinking? And you want to call this kind of knowing, wisdom?


By perception I mean sense experience and by conception I mean that which is arising in the mind. So they are connected and influence each other. This perhaps most visible in art.
Well you are using the concept of perception to point at an idea and not a particular reality as I do.
Perception, according to me is a mental reality which serves to mark the object of consciousness and to recall. Conception is thinking with concepts as object. According to this, what you call perception above must therefore, also be concept. The process of conception begins well before one gets even a vague idea about “something” out there. Indeed the distinction is made, that if the object of experience is not a reality, then it must be a concept.


Get a feel for how each artist describes the space in the painting. You can see how each artist's conception of depth leads them to paint the kind of space they do. <snip>
You are looking to give me a lesson in the history of art. ;-)
I think that you are wrong though. The artists of old didn't have a faulty conception of depth, they simply followed the trend and didn't have any better example to imitate.


Quote: So are you saying that weakening the hold of concepts is not the function of mindfulness and wisdom but that these in fact are the end results? If so, what is it that weakens the hold?
Well there is always a little mindfulness and wisdom present in everyone at all the time, and it can be cultivated and grows within the right environment. To climb the mountain to the top you need to climb it.
You don't think that in fact they all have a lot of ignorance and wrong understanding? And are you suggesting here that people have mindfulness and understanding as an inherent quality, which means that they may not even need to hear about the Truth in order to have mindfulness and understanding of it?

Anyway, previously you were suggesting that mindfulness and wisdom are the end result of a particular development, is this change of heart or a further clarification? Please explain.


Quote: And you are saying that if I *intend* to win over the mental process, the process has already begun?
There needs to be the intent. What else should be present is less important than intent. Everything fails without it. There could be understanding but without the intent to overcome, that understanding will be dropped the moment it arises. This rule fails when the understanding is overwhelming.
Nah. Intention plays no part in the development of understanding. It is understanding which sees the value of further development of understanding that leads the way. Other realities support this understanding, such as generosity, morality, kindness, determination, equanimity, mindfulness, concentration, truthfulness, renunciation. Also understanding is accompanied by detachment and therefore no sense of seeking to have more. The intention that you refer to, on the other hand, this arises with all instances of consciousness and therefore invariably, must be motivated by ignorance and attachment. Taking intention as key is what makes so many people who follow religion, idealists, and is how one ends up fooling oneself.


Quote: So what mental factors qualify as Path, intention and something else, or only intention?
Path would be the path of understanding, intent would be the driving force to walk that path.
Understanding is one of the six “roots” which include non-attachment and non-aversion on one hand, and ignorance, attachment and aversion on the other. These roots are the driving force and what makes the act either wholesome or unwholesome, right or wrong. Intention is only one of the other mental factors accompanying the consciousness whose ethical value is determined by the presence of one, two or three of these six roots.


Quote: Intellectual understanding, direct understanding and realization all must agree with each other. Therefore *the concepts don’t change*. What changes and accumulates is the depth of understanding and other wholesome qualities which must act as support, re: the Perfections. Most notably is the detachment which accompanies each instance of understanding, such that this in fact acts as sign of whether or not one is on the right track. ?
Still good. ?
But didn’t you suggest to the effect that the concepts change, as in the following?

Quote: “You believe certain things about reality and you have been accumulating these beliefs from before birth. They shift and change, and transform as you read about Buddha's teachings,”<end quote>


Quote: Your imagery above is therefore misleading. No grasping attitude towards the teachings, as in “mine the gold”, “something to do”, “having a purpose”, “work hard for it” and “get something out of it”. It is about understanding all the way, which as I said, is accompanied by detachment. Understanding leads the way and does not mind whether or not there is opportunity to open a text to read or recording to listen to. More importantly however, it knows that the teachings are all about the reality “now”, which does not require any label / concept to be applied to. Indeed, the distinction between realities vs. concept is the first step to take, and so a person who has only intellectual understanding will know where he is at and what the purpose of studying the teachings is, namely understanding the reality by the characteristic and not just think about it.
Well said
.

I wonder if this is saying that I had previously misread what you said, or that you now see things differently….?


Quote: Detachment is necessary indication from the very first step. If no detachment is associated with the study, then the study must be wrong.
Detachment OR attachment to everything.
I’m not sure what you are suggesting. Are you saying that if there is detachment, this must be towards everything, otherwise it is all attachment?


Quote: For someone with right understanding even at the intellectual level, there is no need to think about letting go. This is because he knows that detachment comes with understanding itself, and any intention to “let go” short of such understanding must be the result of the influence of attachment to “self”.
Intention does not mean "thinking about doing this or that". That is not intention, that is just thinking about doing it. Intention is the will to do it. It is spontaneous it arises with everything you do.
Right, and my criticism was towards the idea that one must intend to let go, whatever the associated thoughts. I am saying that only “understanding” is called for at any given moment. Second to understanding is kindness, and then there is renunciation, morality, generosity, compassion and other wholesome states. At no time is any of the unwholesome states desirable.


The things you didn't do, there your intent was weak. So if you didn't let go, your intent to let go was weak. Stronger intent would lead to letting go, which could then lead to understanding.
Anyone who intends to let go, at that moment he does not have any understanding or confidence in the Path. This Path is that of understanding or wisdom itself.


Sure understanding can complement intent and vice versa, so with correct understanding, you let go and thus your intent grows stronger.
Letting go or detachment accompanies the understanding. It is one of the roots along with non-aversion, which accompanies the consciousness. Wisdom is always the leader, therefore one could say that detachment follows from the understanding, always. Intention is conditioned by the roots.


Quote: Letting go / detachment with the idea of self is a contradiction.
Be detached from the idea of agreement and contradiction. These are only valid within the conceptual framework.
Only understanding can condition detachment. Weak understanding conditions a corresponding level of detachment. Any prompt to detach, one that is not associated with understanding a present moment reality, must be due to attachment and wrong view.


I think you fully grasp Buddha's conceptual framework. But you must let go of contradictory notions. Reality is going to appear contradictory to someone who is embedded in a strong conceptual framework.
How is that?
Rather than tell me to let go of this or that, just try harder to express your understandings as clearly as possible. Since you think that I’ve got a good intellectual grasp of the Buddha’s teachings, know that it is from this that I judge you as coming from wrong view in everything that you’ve said so far. Sorry.


Now one can, through understanding, break out of that or through intent. Usually it is both.
With intellectual understanding, I say that you are wrong on both counts. One, understanding understands the reality of the present moment, not think about and estimate one concept against another. Two, intention does not determine the rightness / wrongness or wholesomeness / unwholesomeness of the experience, rather it is the six roots which are responsible for this.


Quote: They can or they must?! Are they not fleeting in nature? See, you don't even know what I'm referring to.
By falling away I mean they fall away completely. There is now no sense experience. No memory or concepts arising.
Well, why must you join sense experience and the memory of the experience together in the first place? I think you do this so that your views are accommodated more easily. Is it not imperative in fact, that we understand each kind of experience as distinct from another?


Quote: What is it exactly that is changing?
Observe for yourself and you'll know. What exactly is changing in a river, as it flows, that is what I am talking about.
Just tell me what you “know”. If it is the Truth and I have the accumulations to understand, chances are that I will, and this would be considered a most useful thing to have shared. The analogy that you give however comes across as reflecting an underlying belief in “self”. One steps and does not step into the same river. You accept momentary experiences so long as you can also believe that the river as a whole exists as well.


Quote: Have you not suggested in many of your discussions, the idea that different set of beliefs / practices can all lead to enlightenment, including apparent opposite ones such as dualism and non-dualism? Have you not stated that much of the difference is only in terminology and culture in which each religion / philosophy arose?
Sure I may have said that but how you read what I wrote is a whole different story.
Are you telling me that you meant something else and that in reality you do not believe in more than one path to enlightenment?


Quote: I say that sense experience and their objects are understood by their individual characteristic, each different from the other. Concepts being the product of thinking can only be thought about variously, and this is just more thinking with concepts, not understanding.
Yes
Frankly, I don’t really believe that you agree with what I said.


Quote: So sense experience is not reality. But do explain to me how a concept is known to be concept if not by virtue of understanding what reality is?
Again sense experience is part of reality. Less real than something which is even more real.
A concept is known to be concept by virtue of understanding reality. Otherwise you never really see that it is merely a concept.
Seeing, hearing, feeling, sound, smell etc. are less real as compared to what? So you have understood that particular ultimate reality against which you judge these lesser realities for what they are? Is it a onetime experience the effect of which takes place even now, i.e. all your common experiences are seen as “less” real?


Quote: A child would know what I am talking about when I say that seeing sees or hearing hears and thinking thinks.
No don't bring children into this. They don't concern themselves with this. It would simply make no sense to them. The kind of mind that gives rise to this is not shared by all humans and all of the time.
Why not? Does he not think about his experiences through the five senses? I would only be separating each out for him to consider. You make it sound esoteric what in fact is common sense.


The question here to ask is this: What is that whereby thinking thinks or hearing hear?

That is labelled as "Brahman" in the Upnishads. You may call it X or whatever you want. Knowing it or having the intent to know it will take you out of sense experience. And move you from right to left on this scale. Real > Sense experience > Conceptual framework
According to you thinking is not a reality arisen by conditions which consist of other ephemeral realities, but is in fact caused by THAT or X…. And you seriously believe that the Buddha agrees with this notion?


1. THE Pupil asks: 'At whose wish does the mind sent forth proceed on its errand? At whose command does the first breath go forth? At whose wish do we utter this speech? What god directs the eye, or the ear?'
<snip>
I stopped watching the Deepak Chopra video soon after he mentioned the concept of THAT.


Quote: But you in denying that these are real, are pointing out to me the existence of an ultimate reality which never forms part of my experience.
It is part of reality, which encapsulates everything, sense experience, conceptual, or lack of them.
You weave a story and expect me to believe it to be true. But I’ll point you to the reality of the moment regardless of what it is that you are thinking about.


Quote: And my question to you therefore is, which doorway, the five senses and mind, is this ultimate reality experienced through?
Kabir Ji says
Gauree:

He fashioned the body chamber with six chakras, and placed within it the incomparable thing (soul).

He made the breath of life the watchman, with lock and key to protect it; the Creator did this in no time at all. ||1||

Keep your mind awake and aware now, O Sibling of Destiny.

You were careless, and you have wasted your life; your home is being plundered by thieves. ||1||Pause||

The five senses stand as guards at the gate, but now can they be trusted?

When you are conscious in your consciousness, you shall be enlightened and illuminated. ||2||

Seeing the nine openings of the body, the soul-bride is led astray; she does not obtain that incomparable thing.

Says Kabeer, the nine openings of the body are being plundered; rise up to the Tenth Gate, and discover the true essence. ||3||22||73||
The Buddha’s teachings are all aimed at understanding the moment to moment experience which makes up our lives. And you would say that the above does the same, or something different?


Quote: Do I care about what you have to say? I do read what you express of course. But yes, if you tell me that you have experienced something which I or someone else has not experienced, I do not give any importance to it.
Well clearly you have not experienced it nor do I expect you to give it any importance since you have no idea what it is. But if you are curious then I think you will want to find out if there is something which you can experience for yourself that could give you first-hand insights into Buddha teachings.
As I said above, everything I read in the Dhamma points to the need to understand the mental and physical phenomena which make up my moment to moment experience. I can easily relate to what the Buddha taught at the intellectual level. My faith / confidence in his teachings are built upon this fact. I don’t need to have any level of insight for this to happen, but of course there is confidence in the Path, hence the possibility of insight. What you describe on the other hand, I can’t relate to, and is the reason why I don’t believe in any of it. There is no basis whatsoever for any level of confidence. And you are telling me here, that it is the same as what the Buddha in fact taught?!!! Get real Bhagatji!


Quote: So what is your definition of “reality”? And please do tell me how this “ultimate reality” that you are referring to is not just an idea / concept?
From Tao Te Ching
1
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
21
The Master keeps her mind
always at one with the Tao;
that is what gives her her radiance.

The Tao is ungraspable.
How can her mind be at one with it?
Because she doesn't cling to ideas.

The Tao is dark and unfathomable.
How can it make her radiant?
Because she lets it.

Since before time and space were,
the Tao is.
It is beyond is and is not.
How do I know this is true?
I look inside myself and see.
I used to love the Tao Te Ching so much that I got myself five different versions of it, including an illustrated one. Now I consider it metaphysical nonsense. But do tell me how the above is not proliferation of view that encourage proliferation of thought for most who read, and wrong view in the case of those who consider their perceptions, ineffable?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

ਧਨਾਸਰੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥

ਸਿਮਰਿ ਸਿਮਰਿ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਅਪਨਾ ਸੀਤਲ ਤਨੁ ਮਨੁ ਛਾਤੀ ॥ ਰੂਪ ਰੰਗ ਸੂਖ ਧਨੁ ਜੀਅ ਕਾ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਮੋਰੈ ਜਾਤੀ ॥੧॥
ਰਸਨਾ ਰਾਮ ਰਸਾਇਨਿ ਮਾਤੀ ॥ ਰੰਗ ਰੰਗੀ ਰਾਮ ਅਪਨੇ ਕੈ ਚਰਨ ਕਮਲ ਨਿਧਿ ਥਾਤੀ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਜਿਸ ਕਾ...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top