Senses, and direct perception versus intellect

Jeffrey

I was just doing meditation, walking, and I had some raisin bran in my mouth. First I thought of how the saliva and food form a bolus and peristalsis (waving of esophogas to push food down. I would say that is intellectual content. Next I wondered what the sense experience was. Jon Kabatt Zin has some exercises where you fully sense eating raisins is what made me think of this. The feeling of the food in my mouth was such a huge experience because it was without words. It was more like deep relaxation.

So what is this intellectual content versus senses? Senses has it's virtue in being peaceful, but the intellectual thinking mind has unraveled the mystery of matter as atoms and has made modern medicine possible. So what is the role of Buddhism in this dichotomy? What does Buddha say about sense experience versus intellect?

I guess this is like meditating on the breath versus thinking of the chemical reactions the oxygen undergoes binding to hemoglobin and so forth.

ThailandTom

The mind that thinks too much can run away with itself to all kinds of places, the mind that knows is still and focused. I guess it is best to simply know that you are feeling food in your mouth rather than to run away with the thought in such detail. Touch is just touch, nothing more.

pegembara

Jeffrey said:

So what is this intellectual content versus senses? Senses has it's virtue in being peaceful, but the intellectual thinking mind has unraveled the mystery of matter as atoms and has made modern medicine possible. So what is the role of Buddhism in this dichotomy? What does Buddha say about sense experience versus intellect?

Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

Jeffrey

Pegembra, are you saying that sense consciousness is or isn't existence? Also are you saying intellect is or isn't existence?

I just couldn't understand the relationship though I liked the sutta quotation. Nice to read.

Beej

I think that the moment you decided to pontificate it further and then create this thread, you made it an intellectual venture. Before that it, was a sense perception, regardless of whether you were experiencing that "trigger" at the time or not. That's all I got for this one.

taiyaki

In seeing just the seen, no seer (direct, immediate, bare, naked, non conceptual)

So just the seen, no seer looking outwards at objects. This is an imputation of conceptual holding and thought.

There is just the seen. This seen is arisen dependent upon eye, light hitting the retina, mental attention = effect of eye consciousness (color, shape, form).

This functioning is happening all at once. So eye is dependent upon color as well. They arise mutually. This is a conceptual overlay of dependent arising onto experience.

So first there is the direct experience of the seen with no imputation. Then the groundlessness of eye consciousness is seen by examining how conditions come into play for that arising and in fact the arising and conditions are mutually arisen. hence empty of inherent existence.

Simultaneously the clarity and emptiness is apprehended using both non conceptual and conceptual methods.

Of course dependent origination can be much more complicated and the one functioning can have much more complexity. Like for instance how intention is tied up with consciousness. Also how imputation is tied up with consciousness. Namarupa, etc.

The basic idea is that we directly dive into experience and at the same time we examine and investigate using conceptual processes.

Jeffrey

I also wonder what memory is!

buddhajunkie

Jeffrey said:

So what is the role of Buddhism in this dichotomy? What does Buddha say about sense experience versus intellect?

I guess this is like meditating on the breath versus thinking of the chemical reactions the oxygen undergoes binding to hemoglobin and so forth.

Which method provides you with the most insight into the nature of suffering?

I think the answer to your question is somewhere in there.

pegembara

Jeffrey said:

Pegembra, are you saying that sense consciousness is or isn't existence? Also are you saying intellect is or isn't existence?

I just couldn't understand the relationship though I liked the sutta quotation. Nice to read.

Existence is experience. Without experience (sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch and thoughts), what is there. Experience implies an experiencer ie. they are codependent ["(1) When this is, that is. (2) From the arising of this comes the arising of that. (3) When this isn't, that isn't. (4) From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that."]

These are the raw data from which we build the world. The "world" we live in is very different from that of another. A lot of it has to do with language and culture. Different species live in different worlds - the "worldview" of an earthworm, a bird, a monkey and humans are quite dissimilar but in the overall scheme which of these worlds are "real"!

We build the whole human experience - the big question is what happens when we stop building or fabricating? What is this experience like?

One thing is for sure, we will no longer see the world in the same way ever again.