Question about inherent existence

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Rick wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:41 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:00 pm "Designate" means "label." For example, "library" designates a collection of books. "Book" designates a collection of pages, and so on.
So to designate a set of parts as a table is an act of mere naming, like assigning a ID number to a person, no reification of the designated object is involved, yes?
Not only verbally, by name,
but conceptually as well.
We don’t perceive the “temporary-ness” of a table. We project on it the idea that it is a solid, unchanging, unitary thing, and thus we imagine that it possesses some kind of self-quality.

It’s this projection of an imagined “self-quality” or “intrinsic reality” that beings attach to, which results in dissatisfaction.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Rick wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:41 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:00 pm "Designate" means "label." For example, "library" designates a collection of books. "Book" designates a collection of pages, and so on.
So to designate a set of parts as a table is an act of mere naming, like assigning a ID number to a person, no reification of the designated object is involved, yes?
When one does not know the nature of things, indeed tables are thought to contain tables. When one knows the nature of things, one knows that tables do not contain tables.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5709
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:01 pm
Rick wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:41 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:00 pm "Designate" means "label." For example, "library" designates a collection of books. "Book" designates a collection of pages, and so on.
So to designate a set of parts as a table is an act of mere naming, like assigning a ID number to a person, no reification of the designated object is involved, yes?
When one does not know the nature of things, indeed tables are thought to contain tables. When one knows the nature of things, one knows that tables do not contain tables.
And as I understand things, this "Knowing" is direct and nonconceptual. But grasping the non-tablenesss of tables conceptually is the first step.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

conebeckham wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:48 pm And as I understand things, this "Knowing" is direct and nonconceptual. But grasping the non-tablenesss of tables conceptually is the first step.
Yeah, understanding it intellectually is all we can do at first. It’s still just a concept, something we have to test out in order to have some sense of conviction about it. Once you have that conviction, then it becomes evident in things, in people’s behavior, all sorts of situations.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

conebeckham wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:48 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:01 pm
Rick wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:41 pm
So to designate a set of parts as a table is an act of mere naming, like assigning a ID number to a person, no reification of the designated object is involved, yes?
When one does not know the nature of things, indeed tables are thought to contain tables. When one knows the nature of things, one knows that tables do not contain tables.
And as I understand things, this "Knowing" is direct and nonconceptual. But grasping the non-tablenesss of tables conceptually is the first step.
What is your definition of direct "knowing"?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:55 pm What is your definition of direct "knowing"?
When you accidentally hit your thumb while hammering a nail, there’s no intellectualization, no labels you need to define the experience.
That’s direct knowing.
When you experience ordinary phenomena in the same way, where it’s just automatic, that’s direct knowing.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5709
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:44 pm
Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:55 pm What is your definition of direct "knowing"?
When you accidentally hit your thumb while hammering a nail, there’s no intellectualization, no labels you need to define the experience.
That’s direct knowing.
When you experience ordinary phenomena in the same way, where it’s just automatic, that’s direct knowing.
That's a pretty good example, yes. We can call it direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by SilenceMonkey »

conebeckham wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:50 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:44 pm
Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:55 pm What is your definition of direct "knowing"?
When you accidentally hit your thumb while hammering a nail, there’s no intellectualization, no labels you need to define the experience.
That’s direct knowing.
When you experience ordinary phenomena in the same way, where it’s just automatic, that’s direct knowing.
That's a pretty good example, yes. We can call it direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind.
Is it?

There's all kinds of suffering formed in the mind upon the thumb being smashed with a hammer. It may not be verbal thoughts, but it's definitely not non-conceptual. Nonconceptual means non-dual experience -- but there's still a lot of duality happening.

So can we really call it "direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind"?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

SilenceMonkey wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:07 am
conebeckham wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:50 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:44 pm
When you accidentally hit your thumb while hammering a nail, there’s no intellectualization, no labels you need to define the experience.
That’s direct knowing.
When you experience ordinary phenomena in the same way, where it’s just automatic, that’s direct knowing.
That's a pretty good example, yes. We can call it direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind.
Is it?

There's all kinds of suffering formed in the mind upon the thumb being smashed with a hammer. It may not be verbal thoughts, but it's definitely not non-conceptual. Nonconceptual means non-dual experience -- but there's still a lot of duality happening.

So can we really call it "direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind"?
There may be arising duality a half second later.
But the instance of immediate pain, it’s just that.

Ultimately, everything is either awareness, or else, an object of awareness.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by SilenceMonkey »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:57 am
SilenceMonkey wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:07 am
conebeckham wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:50 am

That's a pretty good example, yes. We can call it direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind.
Is it?

There's all kinds of suffering formed in the mind upon the thumb being smashed with a hammer. It may not be verbal thoughts, but it's definitely not non-conceptual. Nonconceptual means non-dual experience -- but there's still a lot of duality happening.

So can we really call it "direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind"?
There may be arising duality a half second later.
But the instance of immediate pain, it’s just that.

Ultimately, everything is either awareness, or else, an object of awareness.
Half second... or a mind moment? And how much of this "pain" is constructed by the mind, how much would have been in the mind-moment of contact?

I think that vast majority of this pain is created by the mind (in subsequent processes). I'm doubtful that any of the pain would have happened in the moment of contact...
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

SilenceMonkey wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:03 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:57 am
SilenceMonkey wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:07 am

Is it?

There's all kinds of suffering formed in the mind upon the thumb being smashed with a hammer. It may not be verbal thoughts, but it's definitely not non-conceptual. Nonconceptual means non-dual experience -- but there's still a lot of duality happening.

So can we really call it "direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind"?
There may be arising duality a half second later.
But the instance of immediate pain, it’s just that.

Ultimately, everything is either awareness, or else, an object of awareness.
Half second... or a mind moment? And how much of this "pain" is constructed by the mind, how much would have been in the mind-moment of contact?

I think that vast majority of this pain is created by the mind (in subsequent processes). I'm doubtful that any of the pain would have happened in the moment of contact...
It’s still nonconceptual.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by SilenceMonkey »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:10 am
SilenceMonkey wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:03 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:57 am

There may be arising duality a half second later.
But the instance of immediate pain, it’s just that.

Ultimately, everything is either awareness, or else, an object of awareness.
Half second... or a mind moment? And how much of this "pain" is constructed by the mind, how much would have been in the mind-moment of contact?

I think that vast majority of this pain is created by the mind (in subsequent processes). I'm doubtful that any of the pain would have happened in the moment of contact...
It’s still nonconceptual.
I'm not sure if we can say we even "experience" the initial moment of contact. Our experience of getting smashed by the hammer is all dualistic aftermath, and therefore not nonconceptual. Maybe only bodhisattvas have this direct perception of reality.

“In the time of a finger-snap (acchaṭā-mātra), there are sixty moments (kṣaṇa)."
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:44 pm
Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:55 pm What is your definition of direct "knowing"?
When you accidentally hit your thumb while hammering a nail, there’s no intellectualization, no labels you need to define the experience.
That’s direct knowing.
When you experience ordinary phenomena in the same way, where it’s just automatic, that’s direct knowing.
I don't need labels to define my experience. I only need labels to communicate my experience to someone else. Therefore, according to you, all experiences are direct knowing. If so, I don't see anything useful in direct knowing because you can directly know something that is false and yet not know that it is false. In other words, defective senses will still give you direct knowing even though the experience is false.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Sherab wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:21 am you can directly know something that is false and yet not know that it is false. In other words, defective senses will still give you direct knowing even though the experience is false.
A person who is lost in the woods either knows that they are lost (and tries to find the right path) or they are don’t know they are lost, and mistakenly go deeper and deeper into the woods.
In the second situation, there is no perception of being lost.

All of this discussion is kind of beside the point. In the Buddhist context, “direct perception” basically refers to the perceiving of, or the experiencing of events without filtering that experience through dualistic concepts such like/dislike and other ego-generated preferences.

It’s not so much about how the conscious mind is aware of events. The fact that there is awareness is a given. There is always some kind of direct awareness. The “conceptual” part really refers to how we interpret the objects of awareness, rather than describing that awareness itself.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5709
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

Sherab wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:21 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:44 pm
Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:55 pm What is your definition of direct "knowing"?
When you accidentally hit your thumb while hammering a nail, there’s no intellectualization, no labels you need to define the experience.
That’s direct knowing.
When you experience ordinary phenomena in the same way, where it’s just automatic, that’s direct knowing.
I don't need labels to define my experience. I only need labels to communicate my experience to someone else. Therefore, according to you, all experiences are direct knowing. If so, I don't see anything useful in direct knowing because you can directly know something that is false and yet not know that it is false. In other words, defective senses will still give you direct knowing even though the experience is false.
I think that if you examine your mind, you will find that all your "experience" is mediated by mental consciousness and thought, almost entirely. All that content is "label" or conceptual content, really. That is the nature of the mental consciousness. Really, for sentient beings the vast bulk of what we "experience" is mediated by mental consciousness and not direct.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5709
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

SilenceMonkey wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:07 am
conebeckham wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:50 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:44 pm
When you accidentally hit your thumb while hammering a nail, there’s no intellectualization, no labels you need to define the experience.
That’s direct knowing.
When you experience ordinary phenomena in the same way, where it’s just automatic, that’s direct knowing.
That's a pretty good example, yes. We can call it direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind.
Is it?

There's all kinds of suffering formed in the mind upon the thumb being smashed with a hammer. It may not be verbal thoughts, but it's definitely not non-conceptual. Nonconceptual means non-dual experience -- but there's still a lot of duality happening.

So can we really call it "direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind"?
There is a moment prior to the conceptualization of feeling, pain, ouch, etc. that is direct. But mental consciousness takes over in an instant, for us, and our experience becomes conceptual and indirect. In general terms, for sentient beings, all our "Experience" is indirect and mental consciousness.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

conebeckham wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:30 pm
SilenceMonkey wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:07 am
conebeckham wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:50 am

That's a pretty good example, yes. We can call it direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind.
Is it?

There's all kinds of suffering formed in the mind upon the thumb being smashed with a hammer. It may not be verbal thoughts, but it's definitely not non-conceptual. Nonconceptual means non-dual experience -- but there's still a lot of duality happening.

So can we really call it "direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind"?
There is a moment prior to the conceptualization of feeling, pain, ouch, etc. that is direct. But mental consciousness takes over in an instant, for us, and our experience becomes conceptual and indirect. In general terms, for sentient beings, all our "Experience" is indirect and mental consciousness.
That which experience the first moment of an experience prior to the conceptualization of feeling, pain etc., what is it?

That which experience the first moment, is it dependently arisen?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Sherab wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:03 pm That which experience the first moment of an experience prior to the conceptualization of feeling, pain etc., what is it?

That which experience the first moment, is it dependently arisen?
Awareness.
Everything is either awareness, or an object of awareness.
Anything that you can point to that you are aware an is object of awareness.
Can you be aware of awareness?
You can be aware of the fact of awareness, because you are aware of objects, objects of awareness. You can know that there is awareness.

Whether awareness can be directly aware of awareness is debatable.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by LastLegend »

It might be strange to Buddhists on this forum, non-conceptual is like a rock except it isn’t a rock.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5709
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

Sherab wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:03 pm
conebeckham wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:30 pm
SilenceMonkey wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:07 am

Is it?

There's all kinds of suffering formed in the mind upon the thumb being smashed with a hammer. It may not be verbal thoughts, but it's definitely not non-conceptual. Nonconceptual means non-dual experience -- but there's still a lot of duality happening.

So can we really call it "direct perception unmediated by conceptual mind"?
There is a moment prior to the conceptualization of feeling, pain, ouch, etc. that is direct. But mental consciousness takes over in an instant, for us, and our experience becomes conceptual and indirect. In general terms, for sentient beings, all our "Experience" is indirect and mental consciousness.
That which experience the first moment of an experience prior to the conceptualization of feeling, pain etc., what is it?
Awareness--naturally present awareness, empty and lucid, precedes all "experiences" of objects and concepts.
That which experience the first moment, is it dependently arisen?
Naturally present awareness is unborn, unfabricated, empty, and not dependently arisen. In Tibetan we use the terms Sem Nyi, or Thamal Gyi Shepa, or Rangjung Yeshe. These terms are distinct from "Consciousness" which is subject/object and dependent.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”