Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Direct Cognition Versus Thoughts' Abstractions
taiyaki
Veteran
From Stars of Wisdom by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:
We can begin our analysis with the basic and familiar experience of our eyes seeing forms. When that visual perception occurs, what is the true nature of the form that is the eye-sense-consciousness's focal object? What is the true nature of the eye-sense-faculty that supports the perception? And what is the nature of the consciousness supported by that sense faculty? In terms of the mode of appearance, how does the eye-sense-consciousness perceive its object? And what is the perception's mode of underlying reality? We need to examine both the mode of appearance and the mode of underlying reality here. When we analyze our own sense faculties, sense consciousnesses, and their focal objects like this, we make our very own experience the subject of our analysis, and this makes the analysis both immediate and profound.
To apply this analysis right here and now, let us look together out the big window to my left at an orange growing on the three outside. We see that orange with our eyes, but actually it appears differently to each of our six consciousnesses. This is true for any entity-it has six different modes of appearance. So for the eye-sense-consciousness, the only focal objects that appear are the orange's shape and color-the orange's other qualities do no manifest. For the ear-sense-consciousness, all that appears is the sound that the orange makes when it falls from the tree and hits the ground, or the sound it makes when you peel its skin. The orange's form does not and cannot appear to the ear-sense-consciousness; the ear-sense-consciousness does not have the ability to engage the orange's form. The nose-sense-consciousness only perceives the quality of the orange's scent; the orange's other qualities do not appear to it. The tongue-sense-consciousness only perceives the quality of the orange's taste, how sweet and how tangy it is. The body-sense-consciousness only perceives the sensation of how the orange feels when it contacts the body; the orange's form, sound, smell, and taste do not appear to it. Thus, each of the five sense consciousness only perceives its own specific object.
What, then, appears to the sixth consciousness, the mental consciousness? In other words, what focal object appears to our thoughts? The conceptual mental consciousness cannot perceive the orange's form, sound, smell, taste, or bodily sensation. Instead, a thought can only impute an abstract image. This abstract image is neither form, sound, smell, taste, nor bodily sensation. A thought imputes that abstract, unclear, indirect image, attaches the name "orange" to it, and thinks that it is actually perceiving the orange, when in fact it is not.
This is the important point to recognize: Thoughts do not perceive anything directly; they cannot perceive the actual, unique object. They can only impute generalities and unclear abstractions. In contrast, the five sense consciousness do directly perceive specific things, but they do not make conceptual judgments about them.
When we consider the mode of appearance in this way, we see that one orange appears in five different ways to each of the five sense-consciousness, and that the conceptual mental consciousness (our thoughts) only perceives the abstract image of its own conceptual imputation. We mistakenly believe that when we think "orange," the orange that is the object of our thoughts is one and the same as the orange we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch. But the underlying reality is that the "orange" that is the object of our thoughts cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. It is just a facet of our imagination. Thus, analysis allows us to easily understand that the mode of appearance and the mode of underlying reality are different.
Then we can also examine other qualities of this orange. For example, it is created by causes and conditions-it is a composite result of many different causes and conditions coming together. Therefore, it is something that is constantly changing as the causes and condition that act upon it change. It arises ad ceases moment by moment, and so whatever is there in one moment, by the next moment has ceased: it has the quality of impermanence. Also, since it is only the product of causes and conditions, it has no nature of its own; no truly independent identity; it does not inherently exist. Thus, it is said to have the quality of emptiness. Impermanence and emptiness are qualities of the orange's underlying reality, its true nature.
However, our ordinary thoughts simply think "orange," and these thoughts impute permanence and substantial existence to that abstract image they have of the orange. Our thoughts clings to true existence and do not recognize the qualities of impermanence and emptiness. So again, we can see how the mode of what appears to our thoughts and the mode of underlying reality are different.
This important distinction reveals the confusion that causes us suffering. For example, when our thoughts believe that an entity is permanent, that is a mistake, and that mistake causes us to suffer. Because when we believe an entity that makes us happy is permanent, we suffer when that entity ceases to exist. And when we believe an entity that makes us suffering is permanent, we deny ourselves the relief of knowing that it is impermanent and will therefore not cause us suffering forever, or even close to it!
So the more certainty we have that our thoughts' projections are mistaken, the less we will blindly believe they are true, and the better off we will be.
We can begin our analysis with the basic and familiar experience of our eyes seeing forms. When that visual perception occurs, what is the true nature of the form that is the eye-sense-consciousness's focal object? What is the true nature of the eye-sense-faculty that supports the perception? And what is the nature of the consciousness supported by that sense faculty? In terms of the mode of appearance, how does the eye-sense-consciousness perceive its object? And what is the perception's mode of underlying reality? We need to examine both the mode of appearance and the mode of underlying reality here. When we analyze our own sense faculties, sense consciousnesses, and their focal objects like this, we make our very own experience the subject of our analysis, and this makes the analysis both immediate and profound.
To apply this analysis right here and now, let us look together out the big window to my left at an orange growing on the three outside. We see that orange with our eyes, but actually it appears differently to each of our six consciousnesses. This is true for any entity-it has six different modes of appearance. So for the eye-sense-consciousness, the only focal objects that appear are the orange's shape and color-the orange's other qualities do no manifest. For the ear-sense-consciousness, all that appears is the sound that the orange makes when it falls from the tree and hits the ground, or the sound it makes when you peel its skin. The orange's form does not and cannot appear to the ear-sense-consciousness; the ear-sense-consciousness does not have the ability to engage the orange's form. The nose-sense-consciousness only perceives the quality of the orange's scent; the orange's other qualities do not appear to it. The tongue-sense-consciousness only perceives the quality of the orange's taste, how sweet and how tangy it is. The body-sense-consciousness only perceives the sensation of how the orange feels when it contacts the body; the orange's form, sound, smell, and taste do not appear to it. Thus, each of the five sense consciousness only perceives its own specific object.
What, then, appears to the sixth consciousness, the mental consciousness? In other words, what focal object appears to our thoughts? The conceptual mental consciousness cannot perceive the orange's form, sound, smell, taste, or bodily sensation. Instead, a thought can only impute an abstract image. This abstract image is neither form, sound, smell, taste, nor bodily sensation. A thought imputes that abstract, unclear, indirect image, attaches the name "orange" to it, and thinks that it is actually perceiving the orange, when in fact it is not.
This is the important point to recognize: Thoughts do not perceive anything directly; they cannot perceive the actual, unique object. They can only impute generalities and unclear abstractions. In contrast, the five sense consciousness do directly perceive specific things, but they do not make conceptual judgments about them.
When we consider the mode of appearance in this way, we see that one orange appears in five different ways to each of the five sense-consciousness, and that the conceptual mental consciousness (our thoughts) only perceives the abstract image of its own conceptual imputation. We mistakenly believe that when we think "orange," the orange that is the object of our thoughts is one and the same as the orange we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch. But the underlying reality is that the "orange" that is the object of our thoughts cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. It is just a facet of our imagination. Thus, analysis allows us to easily understand that the mode of appearance and the mode of underlying reality are different.
Then we can also examine other qualities of this orange. For example, it is created by causes and conditions-it is a composite result of many different causes and conditions coming together. Therefore, it is something that is constantly changing as the causes and condition that act upon it change. It arises ad ceases moment by moment, and so whatever is there in one moment, by the next moment has ceased: it has the quality of impermanence. Also, since it is only the product of causes and conditions, it has no nature of its own; no truly independent identity; it does not inherently exist. Thus, it is said to have the quality of emptiness. Impermanence and emptiness are qualities of the orange's underlying reality, its true nature.
However, our ordinary thoughts simply think "orange," and these thoughts impute permanence and substantial existence to that abstract image they have of the orange. Our thoughts clings to true existence and do not recognize the qualities of impermanence and emptiness. So again, we can see how the mode of what appears to our thoughts and the mode of underlying reality are different.
This important distinction reveals the confusion that causes us suffering. For example, when our thoughts believe that an entity is permanent, that is a mistake, and that mistake causes us to suffer. Because when we believe an entity that makes us happy is permanent, we suffer when that entity ceases to exist. And when we believe an entity that makes us suffering is permanent, we deny ourselves the relief of knowing that it is impermanent and will therefore not cause us suffering forever, or even close to it!
So the more certainty we have that our thoughts' projections are mistaken, the less we will blindly believe they are true, and the better off we will be.
0
Comments