Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused?

Expand Messages
  • Sarah
    Hi Larry, ... .... Sorry for the delay - others may have clarified. Wrong (conceptual) view is a reality, but the concepts it takes as object are not
    Message 1 of 92 , Jun 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Larry,

      --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi Sarah,
      > I was primarily fishing for an acknowledgment that concepts are
      > realities. This is close enough for now: "As you say, wrong conceptual
      > view is also a reality,...".
      Sorry for the delay - others may have clarified.

      Wrong (conceptual) view is a reality, but the concepts it takes as object
      are not realities. Sorry not to oblige this time;-)

      Why would you like concepts to be realities?



      Do You Yahoo!?
      Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
    • upasaka@aol.com
      Hi, Rob - In a message dated 7/8/03 3:38:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... ============================ I think that the conversation is probably getting overly
      Message 92 of 92 , Jul 8, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, Rob -

        In a message dated 7/8/03 3:38:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        epsteinrob@... writes:

        > >>Hi Howard.
        > >>In the coming together you described above, I would see all the
        > >>elements that co-occur as part of the act of consciousness,
        > rather
        > >>than reducing it all to contact. That is fine.
        > >>
        > >-----------------------------------------------------------
        > >Howard:
        > > Well, I'm tending to think that the the correct analysis
        > may be as
        > >follows: The "act of consciousness" is a citta, and it is concept-
        > only, the
        > >concept, itself, being a mental construct or thought of a complex
        > consisting of
        > >vi~n~nana, arammana, and numerous cetasika. The sense-door
        > activation, sense
        > >consciousness, and sense object do all co-arise, interdependently,
        > and the *event*
        > >of their co-arising is the cetasika, phassa.
        > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
        > Yikes, Howard. I may be getting a little confused, if I wasn't
        > already. I thought that the original object of our discussion was a
        > moment of perception of an object, and thus the act of consciousness
        > would be one of perception, rather than a perceptual moment. Of
        > course, I may not understand correctly what is meant by "contact";
        > but I am seeing it as consciousness touching the object through the
        > opening of the sense-door, thus "grasping" the object. Is there any
        > conceptualization in that moment of immediate perception? If there
        > is, it is not a rupa, and would seem to take the definition of a
        > rupa out of the picture altogether. Am I confused in thinking
        > this?
        I think that the conversation is probably getting overly complex (and
        perhaps of little benefit ;-), and also that we may be talking apples and
        oranges. But to pursue it a drop more, perhaps to clarify a little: On the
        occasion that discerning of an object occurs, there arise the knowing (vi~n~nana),
        the known (arammana - could be nama or rupa), and other mental functions
        pertaining to the arammana (cetasikas); no one of these ever arises without the
        others arising - they are interdependent and co-occuring, but different, phenomena.
        One of the cetasikas, contact (phassa), is the interdependent, joint
        occurrence of sense-door activation, sense consciousness, and sense object. It is not
        the collection consisting of the three, but the *event* of their joint
        activation. As the Buddha said in the suttas, *the coming together* [my emphasis] of
        the three is contact. [An aside: That contact is classified by Abhidhamma
        always as nama, even though two of the three dhammas that come together may be
        rupas!] The *collection* of those three, however, is not a directly experienced
        phenomenon/actuality/paramattha dhamma; it is concept-only (though
        well-grounded concept). The paramattha dhammas that are known, in this context, are the
        knowing (vi~n~nana), the known (arammana), the associated functions (cetasika),
        and their coming together (phassa).
        Now, what we call an "act of consciousness" or a "mindstate" could be
        any several different things. Among these are certain *collections* of things
        that are only pa~n~natti. One candidate is the collection consisting of 1)
        knowing of an object, 2) the object known, and 3) the concomitant functions.
        Another is the collection consisting of 1) sense-door activation, 2) knowing of an
        object through that sense-door, and 3) the object known (i.e., the
        *collection* of the three things whose co-arising - an event, not a collection - is the
        cetasika of contact).
        I hope this clarifies what I'm saying. If not, well, so what? We don't
        need to be particularly certain about any of this business. ;-)

        With metta,

        /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
        in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
        phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.