Concepts can't be avoided and are different from thoughts

I've continued to make my way through Rob Burbea's excellent book about Buddhist teachings, Seeing That Frees: Meditations on Emptiness and Dependent Arising.

As noted before, Burbea goes into considerable detail about his subject, sometimes more than I'm capable of appreciating -- since I'm a fan of Buddhism but don't consider myself a Buddhist.

Then I come across some passages that truly do resonate with me. Here's a sampling. 

This discussion of concepts impressed me because it fits so well with the modern neuroscientific theory of predictive processing by the brain. Basically this says that the brain is constantly making predictions based on prior experiences and sensory inputs.

So models and concepts are a basic part of human cognition. Burbea writes along very similar lines from his Buddhist point of view. He holds out more hope than I do that concepts can be mostly or entirely eliminated from consciousness, while correctly asserting that normally they are integral to experience.

Some conceptual constructs are so subtle too, and so unconsciously woven into the fabric of perception, that without a corresponding subtlety of discriminating awareness they will escape unnoticed and will continue to operate unchallenged.

Conceptuality of all kinds wields its power even when the thinking mind is quiet. To drop thought, then, is definitely not, necessarily, to drop conceiving: thought and conception cannot simply be equated.

Indeed, unlike thought, conception is actually a part of our normal and basic experiencing of anything, as we shall later discuss. And since all of our normal conceiving actually involves, implies, and is supported by, the intuitive conceiving of inherent existence, deep and full relinquishment of concepts is not possible without insight into emptiness.

This insight into emptiness, in turn, requires at least some meditative handling of concepts... Essential to the approach that looks at fabrication is an understanding of the implications of what one sees happening in meditation -- an active inquiry into the dependently arisen nature of transformations of perception.

Here's some passages along a similar line regarding how perception is experience.

Let us stress again though that 'perception' here means more than the act of verbally labelling an object in the mind. Animals do not have vocabulary. Yet still they perceive and discriminate. And at times they feel fear and suffer in relation to what they perceive.

We have a perception of an object even when we have no word for it, or when the mind is free of thought. Perception is experience. And the act of perceiving is the forming of experiences.

Language certainly may be a part of this process of fabricating experiences. Indeed this fabricating role of words may also be explored in practice: with mindfulness it is sometimes possible to separate the labelling of an experience from the experience itself. 

For instance one may see the mental labelling 'pain' as separate from the sensations. Or see the labelling 'fear' as separate from the bodily experience of the emotion. Doing this, sometimes the unpleasantness of the sensations is reduced. Or what was interpreted and felt as 'fear' becomes 'excitement', for example.

It is evident then how the labelling consolidated and intensified the experiences. But such verbal labelling is only one ingredient in the fabrication of experience, one ingredient of what is involved in perception and then only sometimes.

As we have stated several times, perception is experience, or appearance; and we have uncovered much more fundamental ways that it is fabricated, empty, "a mirage". 

For we have seen that the appearance of an object depends on the way of looking. A pain can be perceived as a pain, as flickering atoms of sensation, as an impression in awareness, as nothing, or as unfindable, dependent on how it is fabricated by the view.

Pure awareness, Burbea says, is a fantasy. Citta, our state of mind, always requires an object.

And having seen and contemplated the fading of phenomena, we might now question the whole notion of 'just being' even more cogently. For we can ask: would any such experience of 'just being' really be an experience of non-doing?

Something has to give me the sense of experiencing being. To experience being, I have to experience something. To 'be' is to 'see'. But as practice reveals, to 'see', or experience, something -- any thing, 'inner' or 'outer' -- a degree of clinging is needed.

And as has been made clear, even the subtlest clinging is a doing. A sense of being requires some perception, some experience; and any experience involves the doing of clinging. To be is to see; and to see is to do.

Thus although it might at first seem compelling, on deeper investigation the apparent dichotomy between being and doing is in fact illusory. Being is not any more fundamental than doing, because being is doing.

Very similarly, from all that we have discovered and discussed so far, it is obvious that various related notions -- such as 'Pure Awareness', 'basic mindfulness', 'The Natural State', or 'Presence' (as something basic, pure, and 'non-interfering') -- are simply no longer tenable. They cannot be ultimately true.

Whenever anything is perceived that perceiving involves fabricating through clinging and avijja. And what is perceived is always coloured and shaped by the citta in some way or other; there is no state of the citta even conceivably able to reveal an objective, independently existing, reality of things as they are in themselves. 

Comments

[Ron E.]

Just like the previous blog on ‘Gravitational Waves’, whether its discoveries from astronomers, neuroscience research or the meditative insights gained from enlightened meditation practices, the everyday wonders of life never cease to amaze.

It is perhaps not necessary to understand all the latest developments, or perhaps not even necessary to practice extensive meditation techniques to have an appreciation of life just as it is. For better or worse, it seems to have evolved to be our lot to ponder and endlessly enquire into the how’s, why’s and wherefores of the life we are presented with. And it has reaped us many benefits.

But and I suppose being accepting and moved by life does involve a degree of mindfulness or awareness. Maybe for many of us and perhaps at some junction in life, a sojourn into some sort of meditative practice or perhaps a retreat or two can help to gain a different perspective or even insight on life – or on this ‘me’!

But perhaps, when the storms have cleared and whatever life circumstances deliver, it surely must be possible that through our own observations, untouched by any other institutions or individuals’ conceptions, beliefs or opinions – and without the backlog of our own accumulated mind-held experiences and information – the ‘who we are’ and ‘what life is’ slips naturally into the totality of everything.

[SantMat64]

@Ron E.

I agree that we all have the inherent capacity for appreciation of life. I have found though that practices such as zazen make a considerable difference in that capacity.

[Cassiodorus]

I could be wrong , but I think Rob Burbea was a secular Buddhist . In my opinion , secular Buddhism is certainly better than a crass Dawkins-esque scientism - that being the case to the extent that it promotes virtue and self mastery . That said , I’m concerned that a Buddhism that doesn’t reject philosophical materialism ultimately amounts to a counterfeit Buddhism .

[Brian Hines]

Cassiodorus, all Buddhists are secular, because Buddhism doesn't believe in a god or gods. So I have no idea what you mean by a "counterfeit Buddhism." Sure, many Buddhists believe in supernatural stuff, while many Buddhists don't. But both are genuine Buddhists, since there's no need for anything supernatural in the core Buddhist teachings.

[Spence Tepper]

To see Chitta itself functioning and generating thoughts and images is itself an amazing point of observation. And it happens as a stage of meditation.

Meditation is withdrawing into our place as an observer. Withdrawing from emotion and reactivity, withdrawing from attachment to this or that thought. And in that withdrawal seeing things more clearly.

What modern neuroscience has taught us is that deep meditation turns off portions of the brain, some limbic and some higher functioning centers of cognition. Thinking quiets down. Yet we are entirely conscious and can observe our thoughts without so much of the brain's processing. How can we be more awake and aware of our own internal processes through a process that turns down some of those processes? Deep meditation and prayer can take you there. And separate from that train of thinking, we perceive and understand directly, even without language or symbol.

Then you might say you are seeing clearly. You can watch your thoughts without being carried away by them. They are no longer your masters. That is a wonderful stage of liberation.

And when those thoughts evaporate, what else do we see? Impossible to describe. Pure bliss. What Buddha taught as liberation. At least a stage of liberation.

[SantMat64]

"Cassiodorus, all Buddhists are secular, because Buddhism doesn't believe in a god or gods. So I have no idea what you mean by a "counterfeit Buddhism." Sure, many Buddhists believe in supernatural stuff, while many Buddhists don't. But both are genuine Buddhists, since there's no need for anything supernatural in the core Buddhist teachings."

In the early texts, the Buddha is not depicted as an atheist, but more as a skeptic who is against religious speculations, including speculations about a creator god. In the Devadaha Sutta, the reader is left to conclude that it is attachment rather than God, actions in past lives, fate, type of birth or efforts in this life that is responsible for our experiences of sorrow, no systematic argument is given in an attempt to disprove the existence of God.

And the early Buddhist texts certainly don't argue against the supernatural. The Digha Nikaya is a very early collection of Buddhist scripture, and it's chock full of supernatural beings and events Later Buddhist scriptures are also rife with the supernatural. If there's "no need" for anything supernatural in Buddhist teachings, why are these supernatural teachings present?

Since "supernatural" refers to phenomena or entities that are beyond the laws of nature, and Buddhist texts speak often of non-physical entities such as angels, gods, demons and spirits, it follows that early Buddhism (and hence, all authentic Buddhism) is not in line with philosophical materialism.

[Cassiodorus]

@ Brian

The issue is not necessarily with theism as SantMat64 pointed out . My use of the term “ secular” refers to a movement within Buddhism that tries to conform itself to a scientistic framework -ultimately seeking to reduce the mind to a by- product of the mechanical workings of the brain . Perhaps calling this secular is not the ideal term , but it seems to be used by some folks who are interested in Buddhist philosophy .

[Appreciative Reader]

The Buddha's actual methods and teachings do not center around these questions at all. Unlike Christianity and Islam, unlike RSSB, and unlike Sikhism. What the Buddha taught was the cessation of suffering, that and naught else. The rest he neither himself broached, nor answered when directly asked.

Agreed, there are incidental mentions of superstitious beliefs in some parts. And far more so in later additions. But none of this is central to the core teachings.. ...And nor is this a No True Scotsman gambit, unlike Christianity and RSSB et cetera; this is actually true when it comes to the Buddha's actual core methods and teachings.

Therefore, there is no contradiction, and nothing counterfeit, in adhering to the Buddha's methods while rejecting superstitions.

---

Although there is one issue with this that I've myself encountered, and articulated here earlier. Albeit I've referred to this jokingly, mostly; but to my mind it is a serious issue. And the issue is this: If you truly see life as essentially suffering; and the end to suffering the main goal of life; and further if you reject all superstitions about rebirth and karma and Mara and whatnot: well then, a gun to your head will do the job far more easily and quickly than a long-drawn-out system of discipline and meditation and, on occasion, even monasticism; and further, the truest expression of compassion will be in not having children, in not subjecting them to this suffering that is life, if you don't buy into the many-lives BS the Buddha may have taken as given.

This specific issue, that I've articulated here before, does not admit of a solution within the Buddhistic framework, so far as my understanding goes. If that is what you're alluding to, SantMat64 and Cassiodorus, even though neither of you spell this out, then to this extent I cannot disagree. However, none of this is in opposition to rationality and science. What incompatibility there is, is focused on the centrality of suffering in the Buddhistic understanding of life.

That apart, such superstitions as might be found in the Buddha's core teachings, are only incidental. Truly so, unlike the likes of Christianity and RSSB et al.

[Dungeness]

@ AR [ That apart, such superstitions as might be found in the Buddha's core teachings, are only incidental. Truly so, unlike the likes of Christianity, RSSB, et al ]

They're incidental to any genuine mystic path as well. Confirmation
experientially through a "long-drawn-out discipline and meditation" is
necessary for most... but a virtual gun to the head is more reliable
than a pistol for ending suffering anyway. Better cognitive and health
benefits too.
p.s.
By the way, RSSB doesn't demand a disciple swear to belief in a PLM
(Perfect Living Master) or other superstitious sounding premises. The
truth or untruth is to be derived within through meditative practice.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, Dungeness!

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me there. What I was trying to say is this:

The Buddha’s methods are designed specifically to lead to the end of suffering, by doing two things: first, arriving at realization that there is no abiding self; and second, by going beyond desire and aversion. Now that works, obviously, given the superstitions about rebirth and different planes of existence and so on. But it works equally well when those superstitions are got rid of: even without rebirth and planes of existence, these methods still help take us to realization of Anatta and towards Nirvana.

On the other hand, Christian prayer and works and intercession and the rest of it, are geared specifically towards getting around Original Sin and reaching the Kingdom of God. So that if those assumptions are invalidated, then that invalidates the entire structure of Christianity. Likewise, RSSB meditation is geared towards taking us out of the region of Kal, and to Sach Khand, all of that. And that makes sense only if Kal and Sach Khand exist. If those assumptions are invalidated, then that invalidates the basic, essential purpose of RSSB meditation, and of everything RSSB stands for.

Sure, there might be incidental benefits, like general physical and mental well being. As far as I know, these benefits have been evinced for mindfulness meditation, and not for RSSB meditation, and we might be jumping the gun in assuming that what applies to mindfulness methods applies also to RSSB meditation. But, regardless of that, these benefits are only incidental. Both in the case of Buddhistic practices, as well as in the case of RSSB. There’s nothing wrong in taking advantage of such; that’s all good, why not; but that incidental wellness is just that, incidental, and has nothing at all to do with what either Buddhistic practices or RSSB practices are geared towards.

And, like I spelled out here, the essential Buddhistic “project”, if I may call it that, which is the cessation of suffering by recognizing that we have no abiding self and by decoupling from desires and aversion, stays valid even if we jettison the superstitions it is predicated on. But the essential Christian project of going around Original Sin and attaining to the Kingdom of God, and the essential RSSB project of removing oneself from the domain of Kal and acceding to the Sach Khand region, these are completely invalidated if those assumptions, they are predicated on, are invalidated.

I understand what you’re saying, that unlike Christianity, RSSB does not demand that adherents swear belief in superstitions. And that the truth will reveal itself through meditation practice. Even if both those were true, even then, should those superstitions not actually be true, should Kal and Sach Khand not actually exist, well then, surely that renders moot the whole basic fundamental point of RSSB meditation?

[Dungeness]

@ AR [ Even if both those were true, even then, should those superstitions not actually be true, should Kal and Sach Khand not actually exist, well then, surely that renders moot the whole basic fundamental point of RSSB meditation? ]

The same objection applies to Buddhism though. Suppose a disaffected
Buddhist declared the goal of achieving satori to be a myth born of our
endless quest for an respite from earthly hardships. Therefore it renders
moot the notion of attaining a "cessation of suffering" which he also
opines is mythic since suffering is clearly a lifelong affliction.

The benefits of mindfulness accrue to all serious practitioners whether
Christian, Buddhist, RSSB, etc. though no matter what superstitious
underpinnings their spiritual practice may assert. Indeed, a growing
mindfulness will hone awareness and position them to be more likely
to separate out superstition from fact.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote:
" Even if both those were true, even then, should those superstitions not actually be true, should Kal and Sach Khand not actually exist, well then, surely that renders moot the whole basic fundamental point of RSSB meditation? "

You may have been misled. The point of RSSB is Shabd, Nam, the inner force of life that can be heard in deep meditation. Your teacher, the Master, is the way.

Apparently, as seen here, some Satsangis haven't actually heard or witnessed Nam yet. I can't speak for them.

But as to what distinguishes RSSB, as one of the branches of Sant Mat, it is the Shabd, the life force that one can connect with in meditation, and which doing so pulls one up. Now, what is that? Is it only biological? Could be. But it is an actual experience. It includes a very specific series of experiences. Go and get it!

Then come back and tell us about Satori, Nirvana, Bliss, and Liberation and neurochemistry.

Until then, the knowledge that Shabd exists can only serve as a point of pursuit. No one can discuss it with any credibility without experiencing it, just as a person discussing nuclear fusion, to do so accurately, should have some experience in the field. Or, better still, be a Master of the subject.

But once you have tasted it, regardless of whether you understand what is going on, no going back. That is impossible.

[Dungeness]

@ Spence [ Apparently, as seen here, some Satsangis haven't actually heard or witnessed Nam yet. I can't speak for them. ]

Hi Spence,
I spoke of the benefits of "mindfulness" though which I define
loosely as a kind of "deep listening"... observing thought and
hearing the Shabd both.

-------------
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

------------
"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, Dungeness, Spence. I'm putting my responses to your comments to me in the other thread that Brian's started.