Flower

upekka

when you see a flower how do you know it is a 'flower'?

Jeroen

When you can identify it as having the characteristics of a flower - petals, a heart, a stem, with optionally some leaves or thorns.

Zenshin

So what your saying @Kerome is that its the some of its parts and therefore inherently empty?

Jeroen

We identify it by the sum of its parts, but it is inherently empty of self-essence, yes.

karasti

because once upon a time someone taught me that the sum of the parts, as Kerome described, is what a flower is. Had I grown up in the local native culture, it would be called a waabigwan. In German it would be a Blume. In Finnish it would be a kukka. Different words with all about the same definition so that we can describe our world. But none change what the flower inherently is. Or isn't.

Shoshin

@upekka said:
when you see a flower how do you know it is a 'flower'?

"Nothing is either flower or not flower, but 'thinking' makes it so !"

federica

If it's in my kitchen it's flour. if it's in my garden, it's flower....

lobster

@upekka said:
when you see a flower how do you know it is a 'flower'?

Time for my favourite tale of dharma combat ...
http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/Ydebate.htm

Now you know.

namarupa

We use our perception to recognize that it is a flower. If there had been an element of clinging in that perception, we immediately react to the flower by feeling sad, happy, lonesome, whatever the perception of that particular flower leads us to think or feel.

DairyLama

@upekka said:
when you see a flower how do you know it is a 'flower'?

Memory is an important aspect of perception.

pegembara

@upekka said:
when you see a flower how do you know it is a 'flower'?

The same way one knows what apple, bear, cat, dog and elephant is. You were taught as a child what those names or labels represent.

Perception is passive memory appearing as instant recognition.

David

On the contrary, when I see a flower I know it is not a flower because the flower process has been around longer than labels.

upekka

@namarupa said:
We use our perception to recognize that it is a flower. If there had been an element of clinging in that perception, we immediately react to the flower by feeling sad, happy, lonesome, whatever the perception of that particular flower leads us to think or feel.

do we use our perception or perception arises without our involvement?

@pegembara said

Perception is passive memory appearing as instant {seeing/hearing/etc.}

1. in this case word 'flower' comes from within
2. words coming from within are the perception
3. we cling to those words thinking they are objects from outside

not knowing 1, 2, and 3 is delusion
so we have just delusion, greed with delusion, aversion with delusion
accordingly we think, speak and do
this is becoming/bava/transmigration/samsara

am i correct?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

lobster

@upekka said:
am i correct?

Yes flower.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flower

pegembara

@upekka said:

@namarupa said:
We use our perception to recognize that it is a flower. If there had been an element of clinging in that perception, we immediately react to the flower by feeling sad, happy, lonesome, whatever the perception of that particular flower leads us to think or feel.

do we use our perception or perception arises without our involvement?

@pegembara said

Perception is passive memory appearing as instant {seeing/hearing/etc.}

1. in this case word 'flower' comes from within
2. words coming from within are the perception
3. we cling to those words thinking they are objects from outside

not knowing 1, 2, and 3 is delusion
so we have just delusion, greed with delusion, aversion with delusion
accordingly we think, speak and do
this is becoming/bava/transmigration/samsara

am i correct?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

The perception of impermanence (anicca sanna) is said to be the key to breaking the delusion of selfhood and the conceit "I am".

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html

On the other hand the perception of permanence leads to perception of "things" becoming something else.

We attach a name or label to a person and forget that the so called "person" that name refers to is a convenient fiction. John1 as a baby isn't the same as John2 the boy or John3 the adult or John4 the old man. The delusion is maintained by sticking to only one version of John. Then the process of John as a baby growing up(becoming) and eventually dying of old age is complete.

In the same way "flowers" don't wilt because flowers too are just labels that only exist in our minds.

Firewood becomes ash. Ash cannot turn back into firewood again. However, we should not view ash as after and firewood as before. We should know that firewood dwells in the dharma position of firewood and it has its own before and after. Although there is before and after, past and future are cut off. Ash stays at the position of ash and it has its own before and after. As firewood never becomes firewood again after it is burned and becomes ash, after person dies, there is no return to living. However, in buddha dharma, it is a never-changing tradition not to say that life becomes death. Therefore we call it no-arising. It is the laid-down way of buddha's turning the dharma wheel not to say that death becomes life. Therefore, we call it no-perishing. Life is a position at one time; death is also a position at one time. For instance, this is like winter and spring. We don't think that winter becomes spring, and we don't say that spring becomes summer.

Life-and-death and 'Self'
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Genjokoan_Okumara.htm

Notice that the Buddha, instead of giving a definition of becoming (bhava) in response to this question, simply notes that becoming occurs on three levels. Nowhere in the suttas does he define the term becoming, but a survey of how he uses the term in different contexts suggests that it means a sense of identity

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.076.than.html

DairyLama

@pegembara said:Notice that the Buddha, instead of giving a definition of becoming (bhava) in response to this question, simply notes that becoming occurs on three levels. Nowhere in the suttas does he define the term becoming, but a survey of how he uses the term in different contexts suggests that it means a sense of identity

I don't think it's that clear, and there are different interpretations of becoming ( bhava ) in Theravada.
https://suttacentral.net/define/bhava

In dependent origination becoming in the 3 realms is the basis for ( physical ) birth and death, so here bhava/becoming seems to represent the cyclical process of samsara.

"From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

And what is becoming? These three are becomings: sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming. This is called becoming."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

DairyLama

@upekka said:
3. we cling to those words thinking they are objects from outside

Words are just labels for perceptions, so I don't think it is the words themselves we cling to.
I don't think we are even clinging to the "flower", but rather to it's pleasing qualities, like a beautiful appearance or a sweet fragrance. But of course those pleasing qualities are transient.

pegembara

@upekka said:
3. we cling to those words thinking they are objects from outside

We cling to objects thinking that they are "truly existent things" and not realising their empty nature. They are all subject to arising and passing away every moment.

Bhava tanha has been interpreted as clinging to existence.

What is being (or existence)? There are three kinds of being: sensual desire being (kamabhava), form being (rupabhava), formless being (arupabhava).”
Bhava can be translated as being or existence. When there is Craving and Clinging, there is an object that is craved for, and clung to, i.e. sensual pleasures, etc. This naturally gives rise to a subject (I) that craves for and clings to the object, eg. “I must go to see the soccer match!”, “I’ll die if he does not marry me! “ Thus we see that a new born baby does not display much of an ego or self until it starts to enjoy its food or toys etc. But when it starts to crave and cling, then the ego or self becomes very evident. This ‘I’ gives rise to a living ‘being’, or we can say a ‘being’ comes into existence. Every time we crave and cling, every time we strengthen this perception of an ‘I’ or a ‘being’.
So this being that comes into existence perceives itself as a being in the sensual desire realm of existence or form realm or formless realm.

Once a being perceives that it has been born into the world, it will slowly realize that it will age and die.

http://www.tbcm.org.my/conditioned-arising-of-suffering/

Buddhadragon

@upekka said:
when you see a flower how do you know it is a 'flower'?

Everyday life would be extremely awkward if I had this thought every time I pop in to the florist's...

The flower you see can be and interbe many things: the complex dharma resulting from a far more complex process of dependent origination, the automatic response to all that pesky conditioning we have received, a figment of your mental skandha... and yet, for the sake of convenience and making communication with other fellow human beings easier, yes, I choose to call it a "flower," even if I don't know if it is a flower.

DairyLama

@pegembara said:> Bhava tanha has been interpreted as clinging to existence.

Yes, as well as the craving for sensual pleasure there is the craving for continued existence. I see this as quite instinctual, almost like "survival instinct".

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html

lobster

@upekka said:
when you see a flower how do you know it is a 'flower'?

Bravo @upekka your bloom post has flowered ...

@SpinyNorman said:
Memory is an important aspect of perception.

Indeed.
As others have explained in detail, both a flower and its perception varying from baby tactile perception (flower eating) to more developed adult constructions.
In essence we might say the flower calls back to the seed for its being.

The thought is our soul and route/root to being.

You thought when the Buddha raised a flower he was just being a zennith? Tsk, tsk ...

To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. A Robin Redbreast in a Cage Puts all Heaven in a Rage. A dove house fill'd with doves and pigeons Shudders Hell thro' all its regions.
William Blake

namarupa

@upekka said:
do we use our perception or perception arises without our involvement?

We do use perception in the conventional world. Beyond that, perception arises and ceases just like everything else. We do not have control of anything.