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.
your own idea or sutta excerpts related to this please
upekka
Veteran
in Philosophy
i noticed 'perception - sanna' is a past 'volitional activity - sankhara'
we delude thinking this perception is 'form -rupa'
and
we create new volitional activities on the basis of deluded form (perception) which are the food for 'consciousness -vinnana'
so
avijja paccaya sankhara,
sankhara paccaya vinnana,
then
vinnana paccaya nama-rupa ect.
and
we fall back to samsara
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I thought sanna and sankhara were 2 distinct aggregates?
yes
but
i meant
past sankhara is present sanna
after 'thinking over it (meditation on it) further
i noticed
present rupa (form, sound etc.) , all six sence bases (eye,ear etc.) and arising consciousness are too past sankhara (that we clinged to because of our ignorance)
pain is the effect of such past sankhara
so it comes arising five skanda and falling five skandha
because of oue ignorane
we think they are permanent
and
we are proud (mana) of our own doings (kusala and akusala) which makes us doing them again and again
and we walk in this samsara
I think it depends how one thinks about sanna. The suttas don't say much about it, but it seems like a very basic function of perception, eg recognising ( labelling? ) the colour blue.
I assume that sankharas inform how we react to that perception of colour, eg liking or disliking the colour blue - which is closely tied to feeling ( vedana ).
And of course all 5 aggregates are objects of clinging, including perception itself.
>
I think it depends how one thinks about sanna. The suttas don't say much about it, but it seems like a very basic function of perception, eg recognising ( labelling? ) the colour blue.
yes
but
seeing the colour does not stop at there,
it brings a memory of a flower, a shirt or something else too and
this memory also sanna
our reaction to feeling is not only to the colour but also to the person or thing that brings to the mind with the colour
yes
that is like, we give value to feeling taking sanna is permanent
and
create sankhara
all of the above is because we delude ourselves to sanna and feeling and react (sankhara) to them and
these reactions can be good or bad (kusala or akusala)
this is the present delusion and it becomes the future ignorance
or
present ignorance is the past delusion
this is what i got through meditation
welcome your ideas @spinyNorman and others, please
saññā: Label; perception; allusion; act of memory or recognition; interpretation.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#s
So are we saying that sanna depends in part on previous vedana and sankhara?
An example:
Yesterday I saw a flower with blue blossoms - the particular shade of blue brought back pleasant memories of doing stage lighting ( it was a colour filter I often used in stage lamps ).
So can we try to unpick sanna, sankhara and vedana here? It felt like perception of the colour came first, then the pleasant associations.
My guess is yes.
i say
present sanna depends on previous sankhara
previous sankhara depended on previous sanna and vedana
so
present sanna depends on previous vedana, sanna and sankhara because of our previous delusion
if we get delude to present sanna then we create new sankhara thinking feeling is permanent and such feeling brings by a person or thing (sanna)
so
that previous delusion about sanna, vedana and sankhara becomes the present ignorance
this is Dependent Origination
Forgive me; I'm a little confused (as is normal) what are you talking about? - in plain English please- this is a "new buddhist site' and perhaps I'm putting my neck out here - but a discussion in English would be appreciated by me at least!!!!
@upekka, as someone who informs himself - I have looked up the terms (again, because retention is difficult (or boring), and believe I know and might understand what you are talking about (possibly maybe); but to end on 'dependent origination' after discussing things in other languages just seems a little pointless!
No disrespect btw
It is in the advanced ideas section. Too specialised and Theravadin for me too. However each to their own Middle.
That's actually Why I have kept well out of the way.
I haven't understood a single bloody word.
At times, use of original terms is educational.
Here, to be perfectly honest (speaking entirely for myself) it is completely confusing and dare I say it (Yes, I dare) utter gibberish.
I too, don't wish to offend, but it cannot be assumed, or taken as read, that EVERYBODY is either familiar with, or even understands these terms.
If we wish to enter into discussions, it would help, at least, to provide a translation, in brackets, after first use of the word. Or a post with the words you use, and a translation thereof, as a reference point.
Just a thought.
Basically we're looking at the interaction of 3 aggregates:
sanna ( perception ), sankhara ( mental formations ) and vedana ( feeling ).
I introduced the example of seeing the colour of a flower above as I thought a simple example might help...anyone like to look at this?
where does "Vinnana" (Consciousness) come into this? Or have I missed that inclusion?
(I'm just being a
smart-ass now....)
The OP explained it as "we create new volitional activities on the basis of deluded form (perception) which are the food for 'consciousness -vinnana'
I agree
Basically sense-consciousness can be seen as the first step of the process, then sanna ( perception ), sankhara ( mental formations ) and vedana ( feeling ).
So with the flower example the first step is _seeing _.
It has been my understanding that consciousness arises with mental formations (which are based on ignorance) as their basic condition.
In my analysis, the mind that is arising at this stage of mental formations cannot 'sense' anything, but coalesces about these mental formations to give rise to the senses, and it is this contact of the mind and the senses that subsequently give rise to the sense consciousness that then results in feeling or perception of say colour.
It is my view that this happens so quickly, that it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish between the arising of mental formations, senses and subsequent feelings, because when I meditate I am aware of consciousness, sense things and perceive feeling.
I also struggle to take a step back further to reveal the underlying ignorance.
Not sure if that was helpful
if the discussion is too advance or confusing or gibberish
just Let it Go
no offence taken
thanks @spinnynorman and @wonchuey, your input help me a lot to go further in meditation
trying to put the experience into words might bring further confusion
so i think it is time to stop this thread
thank you all who participated and did not participate in this thread
wishing the loving-kindness and compassion to all !!!
Yes, thank you @SpinyNorman, @wangchuey and @anataman for bringing some light to such shady subject. That way even us beginners can learn something new, instead of feeling left out of a conversation. You have made proof of what a friendly and integrative debate true to Buddhist form should be like.
So:
You See a flower. ('seeing)
You realise you see the flower. (Perception - sanna)
You mentally construe the flower ("Oh, it's a flower!" Sankhara)
You have feelings about the flower. ("It's so pretty, it reminds me of..." Vedana - feeling).
That about it.....?
In Meditation, you would focus and stop at Sankhara..... or at least, that's the theory...!
I used to think about the process in a fairly linear way, but I suspect it's more complicated than that. So with the flower example my attention was probably drawn to it because of previous associations with that particular colour. Like when you get a new car then start noticing the same model of car as you're driving around.
It's tricky because it all happens so quickly, and one has to be paying really close attention to experience to notice what's happening. I suppose that's why mindfulness is so important.
Yes. It's all very well putting them into chronological and 'logical' sequence, (which now I come to think of it, is probably how science/biology would also define the sequence) but actually being AWARE of the sequential process, as it happens, is one mean trick, and an almost impossible one at that.
It's so fast....
True
it seems it is almost impossible
but if one practice more and more one sees
'aha, it is possible'
Not so.
It IS impossible. The closest we can come to it, is to be completely aware that this is how we interact with what surrounds us.
"Ahah, it is possible" is merely acknowledging the process. it is not being conscious of each separate stage as it happens, on an individual basis.
I have to agree @federica...
How can one disentangle oneself from a mental process when it is the basis of the experience. It's like trying to sniff your own arse. But I have to admit there are contortionists among us so it's not impossible...
ability to acknowledge the process by 'thinking over it' is the worldly wisdom
trying to see whether the accepted worldly wisdom is true or not by doing meditation brings wisdom beyond world
but
still one needs to practice mindfulness with the gained 'wisdom beyond world'
to be liberated from samsara
practice, practice, and practice
one will know
Sure.
But you still don't make possible to perceive the different stages as they happen.
You never can.
You can understand and accept and Realise the whole process.
But you cannot sub-divide it essence by essence, aggregate by aggregate and perceive each one as a distinct separate entity.
The Buddha said so.
>
From here:
there is nothing to argue
practice and see for yourself
Metta (loving-kindness), and Karuna (compassion) to all !!!
I am practicing. And I know this @upekka (one who views everything with equanimity) - things happen but I really don't need to be conscious of every aspect of the happening or I could not be a human being - and apparently you can only be liberated from the human realm, sorry can't be bothered to look up the source of that reference - why waste this birth trying to perceive everything - you can't, and if you think you can: YOU = DELUDED; now enough of this nonsense, there are more important things to discover on this site - like pickled lettuce, cushions, tormented beings like myself, that are about to be suffer another night of physical discomfort, people who are dying, people who are human...
Trying to see everything at once takes such an enormous effort - and that creates tension. And that is suffering - not sure I want that any more...
i was happy when i saw your writing in another thread
'I had an interesting experience today during meditation, the shift in perception was not something I had expected; suffice it to say that perhaps we can be liberated after all. Keep meditating on dharma, friends... ...'
yes
YOU= DELUDED
pickled lettuce, cushions, tormented beings like myself, that are about to be suffer another night of physical discomfort, people who are dying, people who are human..
these are also our 'previous delusion or sankhara'
'Trying to see everything at once takes such an enormous effort - and that creates tension. And that is suffering'
true but this is good suffering
namely you are suffering when you do meditation
but that brings good effect for sure
namely once one sees with wisdom ' how this samsara works' just one needs to be mindful with the wisdom one got
then there is no tense
not sure I want that any more.
see, you still have doubt about Dhamma
that means, you have to walk in the 'path' further
anyway, we better stop here and Lt Go of this thread
by doing so we can get rid of suffering 'because of this thread'
Good Idea.
I think that would be best.
Thanks to all who contributed.