| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gileht
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:24 pm Post subject: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
 |
|
..
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
..
==========
..
It is stated in sutra,
..
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
..
Again [we read in sutra],
..
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
..
The Entering the Middle Way states,
..
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
..
=============
..
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition of the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentients beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practive (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary goundless and totaly useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
Gileht
Web site: www.gileht.com |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
tiresias
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:49 pm Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Gileht" <gileht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:226f757e.0308290024.37cf536f@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | .
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition of the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentients beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practive (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary goundless and totaly useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
|
T---Now there's a thought. I think that it is attachment and identification
with concepts that is being indicated as the error. The freedom from
conceptualisation is the art of not-grasping at that which appears to
awareness which includes thoughts.
This strikes me as similar in principle to the oft mis-quoted Christian
teaching that it is the love of money which is the root of all evil.
| Quote: |
Gileht
Web site: www.gileht.com |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ch'an Fu
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
Gileht wrote:
> So what do you think ? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
dogwalker
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Gileht" <gileht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:226f757e.0308290024.37cf536f@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | .
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition of the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentients beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practive (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary goundless and totaly useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
Gileht
Web site: www.gileht.com
attachment to preconceptions of reality/ |
conceptual activity of the mind fails to describe the subtle reality
accumulation of ideas, or simplification?
"the farther you go, the less you know"
"only the insubstantial can penetrate the spaceless"
"he knows to break through conceptual knowledge
in order to directly reach the subtle truth of the universe"
TTC71/Hua-Ching Ni |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
George W. Cherry
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Ch'an Fu" <chanfu@metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3F4F35D7.80E684AF@metta.lk...
| Quote: | Gileht wrote:
So what do you think ? |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Keynes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
On 29 Aug 2003 01:24:34 -0700, gileht@hotmail.com (Gileht) wrote:
| Quote: | .
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
|
Not stopping conceptualization but seeing through it --
disregarding the normal power of concepts to rule us.
Attempting to stop thought is not good practice.
| Quote: | I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition of the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentients beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
|
Animals don't hate or brood.
They live in the moment, unbound by imaginary concepts.
| Quote: | So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practive (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary goundless and totaly useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
|
If the world is filtered through concepts we may
know concepts very well, but we'll not know the world.
Have you ever heard of zen?
All Buddhism is the rejection of false concepts
and ultimately the rejection of 'true' concepts.
It is nothing but concepts that bind us.
Concepts are the condom that prevents the fertility of being.
(Love those sexual metaphors.)
Concepts are the training wheels of life.
Concepts are our tiny fortress against big reality.
All the boogy men are false concepts.
Concepts are a prison and not a refuge.
Give em up. You are set free.
The cell door is open. Why just sit there?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
X X
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:30 pm Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
i think certainly one can say conceptualization precedes attachment,as
name and form precede feeling and grasping in the twelve
nidanas.certaily one must have a percieved or concieved object to base
ones attachment to in the first place,wich is simply a thought
form,concept and of course empty though appearing as a result of a
former thought form.a constant creating and reacting to apparitions of
our own making.thought,concept,and a progressive solidification of them
created all this based on a delusional sense of center and individuation
and solidification of a false basis(self).thought and volition are
obviously very powerful forces and one can create or destroy with them
on many levels,but its all just a big neverending play of illusion and
involvement in it.the buddhas way is seeing and resting. and of course
one can also use concepts without attachment ie. the purity of the three
spheres,wich is a concept,but a subtler one in accordance with
reality.so,i think its a use of gradually subtler concepts as a
tool.kinda like rethinking what we've thought ourselves into.ultimately
ending in simply resting in whats seen,ie. completion stage.so,i think
concepts are of course needed to learn and one can use them without
attachment,hopefully.anyway,conceptualization is definitely a
prerequisite to attachment,but so are the five
senses,consciousness,volition,perception,contact,and feeling,and
utimately ignorance of course,but conceptualization definitely precedes
attachment,though ignorance is the root. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tang Huyen
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:35 pm Post subject: Easy comes easy goes (was Re: Is the root) |
|
|
tiresias wrote:
| Quote: | T---Now there's a thought. I think that it is attachment
and identification with concepts that is being indicated
as the error. The freedom from conceptualisation is the
art of not-grasping at that which appears to awareness
which includes thoughts.
This strikes me as similar in principle to the oft
mis-quoted Christian teaching that it is the love of
money which is the root of all evil.
|
Yesterday Ulrich Topf wrote:
<<Sure, but the problem is that including in Buddhism
whatever is considered to be self or the particles in
suspension thought of as a self is seen as dust on a
mirror that one wants to be clean, instead of clouds
that are floating by and that are simply clouds that don't
require any action from our part unlike this "precious"
mirror of us .>>
I have written on this issue before, so here it is.
The Buddha realised that what he had to let go of -- his
self, views, fetters, latencies, etc.-- was unobtainable
and could not be made known as real and established in
the present things (drsta eva dharme satyatah sthitito
'nupalabhyamano 'prajñapyamanas ca). So, he realised
that what was to be dropped could not be dropped
because it was unobtainable and could not be made
known as real and established in the present things, and
that realisation freed him. Simple, eh?
He said: "self and what belongs to self are unobtainable
and cannot be made known as real and established in
the present things (drsta eva dharme satyatah sthitito
'nupalabhyamano 'prajñapyamanas ca), the views,
fetters and latencies in the mind are unobtainable and
cannot be made known," or: "The Tathagata is
unobtainable and cannot be made known as real and
established in the present things." MA, 200, 765b29,
SA, 104, 31b1-2, SA, 104, 31b1-2.
So if one feels one has a reasonable idea of what the
illusion/delusion is, and how to strip it away and see
through it, then one is ahead of the Buddha. He gave
up on all that -- what the illusion/delusion is, and how
to strip it away and see through it.
To him none of that could be got at, both the what
and the how -- what the illusion/delusion is and how to
strip it away and see through it.
That was how he stripped it away and saw through
it -- keeping in mind that the "it" could not be got at.
So it is fully possible to agree with Tiresias when he
says that "it is attachment and identification with
concepts that is being indicated as the error. The
freedom from conceptualisation is the art of
not-grasping at that which appears to awareness
which includes thoughts."
For that which appears to awareness which includes
thoughts is unobtainable and cannot be made known
as real and established in the present things,
therefore cannot be grasped at, and what cannot be
grasped at cannot be not-grasped at. One can only
let it appear and disappear on its own accord, or,
as Ulrich says, simply accept what those greater
forces (whatever they are and are not) bring us.
Tiresias' art of not-grasping at that which appears to
awareness which includes thoughts is just Ulrich's
way to deal with "clouds that are floating by and
that are simply clouds that don't require any action
from our part." This is what Kant (pejoratively)
calls the non-doing (Nichtstun) of the people who
follow grace.
Tang Huyen |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Awaken21
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:15 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
gileht@hotmail.com (Gileht) wrote in message news:<226f757e.0308290024.37cf536f@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | .
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition of the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentients beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practive (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary goundless and totaly useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
Gileht
Web site: www.gileht.com
|
I'm wondering what they are defining as conceptualization, that would
allow us to see if deviations in meaning can be discerned from the
way you are defining it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
naked ape
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 2:15 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:881vkvg30angcr9kokfcvmaincj8a1q0ul@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On 29 Aug 2003 01:24:34 -0700, gileht@hotmail.com (Gileht) wrote:
.
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
Not stopping conceptualization but seeing through it --
disregarding the normal power of concepts to rule us.
Attempting to stop thought is not good practice.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition of the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentients beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
Animals don't hate or brood.
They live in the moment, unbound by imaginary concepts.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practive (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary goundless and totaly useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
If the world is filtered through concepts we may
know concepts very well, but we'll not know the world.
Have you ever heard of zen?
All Buddhism is the rejection of false concepts
and ultimately the rejection of 'true' concepts.
It is nothing but concepts that bind us.
Concepts are the condom that prevents the fertility of being.
(Love those sexual metaphors.)
Concepts are the training wheels of life.
Concepts are our tiny fortress against big reality.
All the boogy men are false concepts.
Concepts are a prison and not a refuge.
Give em up. You are set free.
The cell door is open. Why just sit there?
|
"No concept is the carrier of life." Carl Jung |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:25 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"naked ape" <naked_apes@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:CnP3b.769$vm2.81@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
| Quote: |
"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:881vkvg30angcr9kokfcvmaincj8a1q0ul@4ax.com...
On 29 Aug 2003 01:24:34 -0700, gileht@hotmail.com (Gileht)
wrote:
.
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by
Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus
grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And
that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
Not stopping conceptualization but seeing through it --
disregarding the normal power of concepts to rule us.
Attempting to stop thought is not good practice.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition
of the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in
humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentients beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of
innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
Animals don't hate or brood.
They live in the moment, unbound by imaginary concepts.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practive (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary goundless and totaly useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
If the world is filtered through concepts we may
know concepts very well, but we'll not know the world.
Have you ever heard of zen?
All Buddhism is the rejection of false concepts
and ultimately the rejection of 'true' concepts.
It is nothing but concepts that bind us.
Concepts are the condom that prevents the fertility of being.
(Love those sexual metaphors.)
Concepts are the training wheels of life.
Concepts are our tiny fortress against big reality.
All the boogy men are false concepts.
Concepts are a prison and not a refuge.
Give em up. You are set free.
The cell door is open. Why just sit there?
"No concept is the carrier of life." Carl Jung
|
Ya! But the question is :
Is no-concept is the carrier of life ?
Gileht |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ch'an Fu
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:39 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Gileht.com" wrote:
| Quote: | Ya! But the question is :
Is no-concept is the carrier of life ?
|
there isn't any question, dopey.
why ask for an answer? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Raan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:46 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:881vkvg30angcr9kokfcvmaincj8a1q0ul@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On 29 Aug 2003 01:24:34 -0700, gileht@hotmail.com (Gileht) wrote:
.
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
Not stopping conceptualization but seeing through it --
disregarding the normal power of concepts to rule us.
Attempting to stop thought is not good practice.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition of the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentients beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
Animals don't hate or brood.
They live in the moment, unbound by imaginary concepts.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practive (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary goundless and totaly useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
If the world is filtered through concepts we may
know concepts very well, but we'll not know the world.
Have you ever heard of zen?
All Buddhism is the rejection of false concepts
and ultimately the rejection of 'true' concepts.
It is nothing but concepts that bind us.
Concepts are the condom that prevents the fertility of being.
(Love those sexual metaphors.)
Concepts are the training wheels of life.
Concepts are our tiny fortress against big reality.
All the boogy men are false concepts.
Concepts are a prison and not a refuge.
Give em up. You are set free.
The cell door is open. Why just sit there?
|
Assuming this is all sexual metaphor let the child go already.
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:06 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"X X" <laughing_vajra@webtv.net> wrote on his TV :
| Quote: | "Gileht" <gileht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:226f757e.0308290024.37cf536f@posting.google.com...
.
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by Serlingpa
(a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus
grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And
that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition of
the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentients beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of
innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practice (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary groundless and totally useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
Gileht
Web site: www.gileht.com
|
====================
"X X" <laughing_vajra@webtv.net> wrote on his TV :
I think certainly one can say conceptualization precedes
attachment, as name and form precede feeling and grasping in the
twelve nidanas.
Certainly one must have a perceived or conceived object to base ones
attachment to in the first place, which is simply a thought form,
concept and of course empty though appearing as a result of a former
thought form.
A constant creating and reacting to apparitions of our own making.
Thought, concept, and a progressive solidification of them created
all this based on a delusional sense of center and individuation and
solidification of a false basis (self).
Thought and volition are obviously very powerful forces and one can
create or destroy with them on many levels, but its all just a big
never-ending play of illusion and involvement in it.
The Buddhas way is seeing and resting.
And of course one can also use concepts without attachment i.e. The
purity of the three spheres, which is a concept, but a subtler one
in accordance with reality.
So, I think its a use of gradually subtler concepts as a tool.
Kinda like rethinking what we've thought ourselves into.
Ultimately ending in simply resting in what is seen, i.e. completion
stage.
So, I think concepts are of course needed to learn and one can use
them without attachment, hopefully.
Anyway, conceptualization is definitely a prerequisite to
attachment, but so are the five senses, consciousness, volition,
perception, contact, and feeling, and ultimately ignorance of
course, but conceptualization definitely precedes attachment, though
ignorance is the root.
====================
Gileht answers:
How could conceptualization be the problem since
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentient beings
do not have the capacity for conceptualization
but are still stuck in samsara, suffering?
How could name and form, which applies to all sentient beings, be
equivalent to conceptualization, which applies only to humans?
And to give the capacity of conceptualization to all sentient beings
(even unicellulars) would be totally unacceptable anthropomorphism.
You are reading the twelve nidanas model (the Wheel of Life) in a
very narrow linear manner. Everybody knows that it is just a model,
and should not be read linearly. It is a circle. All links are
dependent on all the other ones. And the main point is not the
linearity but the interdependence between name & form and
consciousness; the fact that one cannot exist without the other;
that they are co-dependently arisen, thus both empty of inherent
existence. That means that the world and mind are interdependent,
inseparable, non-dual: not two not one.
So conceptualisation CANNOT be a prerequisite to attachment, and is
NOT the root of all suffering, and the solution (path) cannot
consist of stopping the conceptual mind. That is a model that is not
present in old sutras nor in the Madhyamika teachings of Nagarjuna
et al. It is a false model that has been added later and seems
totally wrong.
And it is more than just a translating problem.
Gileht |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gileht.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:07 am Post subject: Re: Is the root of attachment conceptualization ? |
|
|
"tiresias" <me@mine.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:bin44m$b70mr$1@ID-167739.news.uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: |
"Gileht" <gileht@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:226f757e.0308290024.37cf536f@posting.google.com...
.
In A Commentary on the "Leveling out all Conceptions" by
Serlingpa (a
teacher of Atisha) we read:
.
==========
.
It is stated in sutra,
.
O, attachment, I've now discerned your root:
You arise from great proliferation of conceptions.
.
Again [we read in sutra],
.
Preconception is the great ignorance
That casts you into the ocean of cyclic existence.
.
The Entering the Middle Way states,
.
Ordinary beings are chained by conceptions,
While the yogis free of conceptions become released.
That which reveals the conceptions to be false
Was taught by the learned as fruits of a thorough analysis.
.
=============
.
These seem to say that the root cause of attachment (and thus
grasping
which is the cause of all suffering) is conceptualization. And
that
stopping conceptualization is the solution.
I cannot accept that since, according to our usual definition of
the
term, the capacity for conceptualization is found only in humans
(except maybe with some primates and dolphins, but that is not
accepted at large).
The point is that
99.999999999999999999999999999% of sentient beings
are not humans; but still stuck in samsara with their form of
innate
self-grasping and other form of attachment.
So it seems to me that the root cause of attachment cannot be
conceptualization.
And that any view or practice (Tibetan or not) based on this is
necessary groundless and totally useless.
No?
So what do you think ?
T---Now there's a thought. I think that it is attachment and
identification
with concepts that is being indicated as the error. The freedom
from
conceptualisation is the art of not-grasping at that which appears
to
awareness which includes thoughts.
This strikes me as similar in principle to the oft mis-quoted
Christian
teaching that it is the love of money which is the root of all
evil.
Gileht
Web site: www.gileht.com
|
Hi T.
I would agree with you on what is the real cause of suffering:
grasping and the cause of grasping being ignorance, thinking things
and beings really inherently exist, on their own ...
But it looks like many Buddhists, including Tibetans, think it is
"conceptualisation" itself that is bad, and their path is
aiming at abandoning this.
They seem to think that there is a pure consciousness under all
conceptualization, and that it is enough to stop all
conceptualisation to "merit" enlightenment some how.
The whole trip about "direct perception" is about this.
Looks to me like they were guilty of anthropomorphism when
attributing
the capacity of conceptualization to all sentient beings and saying
that the solution is to get rid of the conceptual mind.
More later ...
Gileht |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
