Adding fantasy to perception.

[Inge]

Adding fantasy to perception.

What do you think of that expression. I read it some time ago on ZFI, and maybe also earlier on E-sangha.

For instance I said to my parents a while ago that I had now way of knowing anything about that which is not within my experience. For instance, assuming that there are something outside the house is adding fantasy to perception. My mother said this was some horrible non-sense, and completely useless speach, and that off course there were things outside the walls of the house.

What do you think? Is it useful to not add fantasy to perception?

[spiritnoname]

It is useful to know that our mind objects pertaining to things outside of our senses are mind objects created by memories of experience, what someone said, or inferential logic.

I think that expression is coarse and unrefined and can be taken to a unskillful conclusion.

Our mind objects, our mental perceptions based on memory, hearsay or logic, are often as useful and as questionable as our experience through the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin, which can also be confused and are mixed with feelings, pleasant and unpleasant, these feelings being influenced by our past karmas and views created by memory, what someone said, and inferential logic.

See,.. all our sense doors, sight, sound, taste, touch, smells and mental objects, are all questionable and useful, and to suppose some are reliable always and some are not reliable at all is unskillful.

I took a lot of time to explain this subject in some detail, I hope it is helpful for you in cutting out wrong views and establishing right views, learning how to use views like a skillful surgeon wielding a razor.

[Individual]

Adding fantasy to perception.

What do you think of that expression. I read it some time ago on ZFI, and maybe also earlier on E-sangha.

For instance I said to my parents a while ago that I had now way of knowing anything about that which is not within my experience. For instance, assuming that there are something outside the house is adding fantasy to perception. My mother said this was some horrible non-sense, and completely useless speach, and that off course there were things outside the walls of the house.

What do you think? Is it useful to not add fantasy to perception?

Logical inference is not fantasy. Your mother was right.

[ground]

Adding fantasy to perception.

What do you think of that expression. I read it some time ago on ZFI, and maybe also earlier on E-sangha.
...
What do you think? Is it useful to not add fantasy to perception?

The question is: Is it possible not to add fantasy to perception?

"Talking about", "thinking about" actually is adding fantasy to perception. But empirically one can say that there is fantasy which is reliable in that it entails the successful attainment of goals and fantasy which is not so reliable. So in this sense even within falsity there can be "truth".

Kind regards

[Huifeng]

Adding fantasy to perception.

What do you think of that expression. I read it some time ago on ZFI, and maybe also earlier on E-sangha.

For instance I said to my parents a while ago that I had now way of knowing anything about that which is not within my experience. For instance, assuming that there are something outside the house is adding fantasy to perception. My mother said this was some horrible non-sense, and completely useless speach, and that off course there were things outside the walls of the house.

What do you think? Is it useful to not add fantasy to perception?

I'd say that although "not adding fantasy to perception" is good advice for practice, the word "fantasy" does not perhaps go far enough in describing what should not be added.

"Fantasy" tends to conjure up (literally!) images of dragons and fairies, fanciful dreams and so on.
However, just saying "this is me and that is you" is usually not described in English as "fantasy".
As your mother rightly says.

Yet, these self-views are just the very thing that we should also not add to perception.

[swampflower]

Adding fantasy to perception.

What do you think of that expression. I read it some time ago on ZFI, and maybe also earlier on E-sangha.

For instance I said to my parents a while ago that I had now way of knowing anything about that which is not within my experience. For instance, assuming that there are something outside the house is adding fantasy to perception. My mother said this was some horrible non-sense, and completely useless speach, and that off course there were things outside the walls of the house.

What do you think? Is it useful to not add fantasy to perception?

In my opinion, it would not be useful to add fantasy to perception. One of the methods of developing the mind in Buddhism is to try to cut away illusions that arise through perceptions cognized through the obscuring veil of ignorance. To add fantasy is extremely counter productive to the Buddhist path.
A fruit of Buddhism is a true perception of reality, not a fantasy.

[Inge]

But to live according to the principle of not adding fantasy to perception seems very difficult.

I just noticed that the expression "adding fantasy to perception" gives the impression that perception is not fantasy, that perception is reality. Is that so?

And are not also mental objects perceived?

Isn't this what the Buddha is talking about in the Bahiya Sutta

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

[ground]

Isn't this what the Buddha is talking about in the Bahiya Sutta

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: ...

That is wonderful!

However as a Mahayanist your foundation of bodhicitta should be stable when doing such kind of practices otherwise one lapses from the Mahayana.

Another nice one is this:

"He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of village are not present. Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of human being are not present. There is only this modicum of disturbance: the singleness based on the perception of wilderness.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the perception of village. This mode of perception is empty of the perception of human being. There is only this non-emptiness: the singleness based on the perception of wilderness.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Kind regards