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.
Wrong View, Delusion and distorted pereception
upekka
Veteran
there is close relationship among the concepts of Wrong view, Delusion and Distorted Perception
fall into the Distorted perception is the wrong view
what ever thought (mind object) comes into mind is a remainder of strenthened wrong view (strenthened distorted perception)
because we are not aware of this (this is delusion) we start to think or react (speech, or deed) to such thoughts (avidya paccaya sankhara)
in other words we fall back to wrong view again and again strenthening our existing distorted perceptions
this proces can be called as the process of creating sankhara for future becoming/ future kamma vipaka etc.
How can we differenciate our perception and distorted perception?
what exactly perception is? distorted perception is?
fall into the Distorted perception is the wrong view
what ever thought (mind object) comes into mind is a remainder of strenthened wrong view (strenthened distorted perception)
because we are not aware of this (this is delusion) we start to think or react (speech, or deed) to such thoughts (avidya paccaya sankhara)
in other words we fall back to wrong view again and again strenthening our existing distorted perceptions
this proces can be called as the process of creating sankhara for future becoming/ future kamma vipaka etc.
How can we differenciate our perception and distorted perception?
what exactly perception is? distorted perception is?
0
Comments
Valid ones would be functional composites that "exist" on the conventional/relative level but are recognized as being non-inherently existant.
Invalid ones would be similar to a fever induced hallucination. It has no functional relative or conventional reality and is nothing but a distorted perception/cognition.
When an individual is perceiving an invalid cognition we cannot really say they fall into wrong view. If a person witnesses valid cognitions and insists that they are permanent and unique entities then that person has "wrong view".
Could you give examples of this? It seems like one can say... "This is a chair" then go and sit in the chair, one is not falling into delusion because the empty nature of the chair and ones bottom is recognized. However if you say "there is a gnome sitting in that chair" its a different story. Is this what you mean? Thanks.
Lets say a person with healthy eyes and no history of mental illness or hallucinations looks at the chair. That person would clearly and validly see a chair. The chair has a valid functionality in the relative/conventional world and is of course based upon many parts and causes and conditions in order to be perceived, not to mention the interdependent nature of the perceiver. The person looking at the chair can easily reason that the chair and his/her self is nothing more than a collection of parts put together that performs a relative and valid function, therefore this is a valid conventional cognition and perception. This is why we dont "disparage the relative", the relative truth has valid functionality and does "exist" in dependence on causes and conditions and therefore must be recognized.
Now, if the same person looks at the chair and sees a gnome in it, then that person either has unhealthy eye senses that make them see gnomes or is hallucinating and therefore cannot properly judge what is and what is not valid and functional in the relative sense. This is an invalid cognition. We can not fairly say that the person seeing the gnome has "wrong view" because they dont have the faculties necessary to establish the view.
If a person with healthy eyes and no history of mental illness sees a chair with no gnomes or other hallucinations but perceives it and themselves as inherently existing in and of itself, we can fairly say that this person is deluded and has wrong view.
in other words we all are (except stream winners/ those who have the Right View) all the time with Wrong View?
The chair and person exist conventionally. Wrong view is to expect permanence when all is impermanent. Both appears "unchanging" but are in fact decaying moment to moment. Fast forward 10 or 20 years and the process becomes obvious. Both are empty of inherent existence.
Gnomes are either figments of ones imagination, result of mental hallucinations or cultural belief. They too are empty and clearly impermanent.
In the words of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu:
“There is no one best way to prepare for death, except to let go of [the clinging to] your mind and body. After all, there is no death of any particular ‘self.’ The enlightened mind will realize there is no ‘us’ who was born, grows old, succumbs to illness and dies. There are only mental formations that arise in accordance with the Law of Idappacayata [Conditionality]. As long as the mind still clings to self, old age, sickness, and death will prevail. If there is no self, everything is part of the course of nature. There will be no problems. There will be no suffering. Thus is life.”
I dont think so, I think that many of us can maintain at least the recognition of impermanence and interdependence. It may not be 100% of the time but I dont think that means we have wrong view.
We would have wrong view if we truly believed in a permanent non-changing self or phenomena.
sure, if you become attached to a "view" ultimately you will have problems.
Thats why the commentaries speak of the emptiness of emptiness.
The point that you bring up is one that made a lot of his Tibetan contemporaries disagree with Tsongkhapa.
The great Sakya philosopher Gorampa talks about this in his excellent work Freedom From Extremes which has been translated into english by Jose Cabezon.
think that we know 'rupa', 'vedana', 'sanna', 'sankhara', 'vinnana' would not help us to convince (experience) non-self and changing nature of phenomena
if we (almost all except stream winners) think we know these things that is superficial knowledge of the five aggregates which never let us convince non-self and impermenance of phenomena
i tried to understand (in deeper level) of rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana using the five faculties (eyes, ears etc.) and the mind and found that trying to understand (in deeper level) of sanna would help to see the difference between miccha ditti and samma ditti
for instance
when 'we hear a sound' [when there is hearing -ear+sound+conciousness] without knowing we take it as 'someone's voice or a sound make by 'something' (this is perception)
it is alright, otherwise we can not function in this world (this conventional world)
however this 'someone' or 'something' is embodied with a story (a long historical knowledge belongs to it) for different induvidual differently- this is the distorted perception
we always react (thought/speech/deed) to this distorted perception
to be with the perception instead of falling into the distorted perception we have to be 'mindful' which means we must practise the Buddha's Teaching that is 'there is only hearing' but not that 'I hear a thing'
mindful means be with hearing instead of taking it as a hear a thing etc for the five faculties
to do this,
we should pay attention when we hear a sound, see a colour etc. and try to differenciate our own 'perception and distorted perception' by trying to see what acctualy we hear and but what we take as we hear etc.
[not sure whether i wrote what i wanted to say, anyway i tried]
good post.
its certainly challenging to get the right words out when we are talking about topics like this.
I think you're right. I guess it would make more sense if I were to say that one who philosophically asserts an extreme view of either eternalism or nihilism has wrong view, rather than one who "believes" in a permanent/non-changing identity of self and phenomena.
after some times (days, months, years depend on the person) there comes a 'time' (point) where one sees neither perception nor distorted perception
An object is seen by a hundred different people like a hundred reflections in a hundred mirrors. But is it the same object? As a first approximation, it’s the same object, but one that can be perceived in completely different ways by different beings. Only one who has attained enlightenment recognizes the object’s ultimate nature – that it appears, but is devoid of any intrinsic existence – as the direct contemplation of absolute truth transcends any intellectual concept, any duality between subject and object.
Buddhism’s position is that of the ‘Middle Way: the world isn’t a projection of our minds, but it isn’t totally independent of our minds, either – because it makes no sense to speak of a particular, fixed reality independent of any concept, mental process, or observer. Rather there is interdependence. In this manner, Buddhism avoids falling into either nihilism or eternalism. Phenomena arise through a process of interdependent causes and conditions, but nothing exists in itself or by itself.
Colors, sounds, smells, flavors, and textures aren’t attributes that are inherent to the objective world, existing independently of our senses. The objects we perceive seem completely ‘external’ to us, but do they have intrinsic characteristics that define their true nature? What is the true nature of the world as it exists independently of ourselves? We have no way of knowing, because our only way of apprehending it is via our own mental process. So, according to Buddhism, a ‘world’ independent of any conceptual designation would make no sense to anyone. To take an example, what is a white object? Is it a wavelength, a ‘color temperature’, and or moving particles? Are those particles energy, mass, or what? None of those attributes are intrinsic to the object, they’re only the result of our particular ways of investigating it.
Buddhist scriptures tell the story of two blind men who wanted to have explained to them what colors were? One of them was told that white was the color of snow. He took a handful of snow and concluded that white was ‘cold’. The other blind man was told white was the color of swans. He heard a swan flying overhead, and concluded that white went ‘swish swish’... The complete and correct recollection of the story aside, the point being the world cannot be determined by itself. If it was, we’d all perceive it in the same way.
That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena.
It makes little difference if there is a world out there, or if there is not a world out there, because we don't live in the world. We live almost exclusively in our minds, and what can be imagined. This is why our world is called an illusion.
We are constantly manufacturing what we think we know, out of mere fragments of sense data. We are dreaming. And just like our nightly dreams, these daily dreams are only temporary. Like clouds in the sky.
Get any 2 men in a room, ask them what they see and know, and you will always have 3 opinions.
; ^ )
Every thing we think that we know, about any thing in this world, must first pass through the filters of our mind (senses) and be translated into know-ability with little agreement and no final answers.
The Truth or Reality lies deeper than the surface movie that seems to be playing before our eyes.
S9
If anything, metaphysics is quite fascinating and a pleasurable topic of cordial discourse and personal contemplation… As such, let us consider the term ‘illusion’, as it relates to the original question of this thread, the ‘Middle Way’, and the favor of your splendid insight, comments and points of view.
For those of us living in that illusion, the world seems as real as it possibly could be. But just as ice is only solidified water, the solidity we ascribe to the world isn’t its ultimate reality. This illusionary nature of the world doesn’t stop the laws of cause and effect being inescapable. Physicists would say that electrons aren’t tiny cannonballs but concentrations of energy. Such a statement doesn’t even slightly lessen the need to develop medicine, to allay suffering and to solve all the problems of everyday life. Even if the self is only an imposture, and even if the external world isn’t made up of entities endowed with true existence, it’s perfectly legitimate to remedy suffering by all available means and to do whatever can be done to increase the well-being of all. In the same way, a scientist who understands that we’re only made of particles that can be reduced to just energy won’t thereby be rendered indifferent to happiness and suffering.
Buddhist practice involves three complementary aspects – view, meditation and action. The ‘view’ is what corresponds to the metaphysical perspective, investigation of the ultimate nature of things, of the phenomenal world and of the mind. Once this view has been established, ‘meditation’ consists of familiarizing oneself (distinctively) with that view and integrating it through spiritual practice into the stream of consciousness, in such a way that the view becomes second nature (post-meditation). ‘Action’ is the expression in the outer world of the inner knowledge acquired through ‘view’ and ‘meditation’. It is a matter of applying and maintaining that knowledge in all circumstances. This is the phase in which ethics, or morals, enters into things. Ethics doesn’t become invalid when you realize the illusionary nature of the world. Someone whose eyes of wisdom are open sees even more clearly and finely the mechanisms of cause and effect, and knows what should be undertaken and what should be avoided in order to continue making progress on the path and bringing happiness to others. Again, the ‘Middle Way’ isn’t exclusionary, but inclusionary.
The goal isn’t to deny that there’s any such thing as the phenomenal world as we perceive it – what Buddhism calls relative truth – but to show that the world isn’t as real as we think. In fact, coming into existence seems impossible, because, once again, being can’t arise from nothingness, and if it already exists it doesn’t need to arise. At the same time, it doesn’t ‘cease’, because it’s never come into existence. This is what leads Buddhism to say the world is like a dream or an illusion. It doesn’t say the world is a dream or an illusion, because that would be falling into nihilism. As such and according to this ‘Middle Way’, appearances are emptiness, and from emptiness arise appearances.
As an alternate view, certain Hindu philosophers opposed Buddhism with the premise that if everything’s like a dream, if your suffering is like a dream, what’s the use of trying to attain enlightenment? The reply is this. Since beings do undergo the experience of suffering, it’s right to dissipate it, even if it’s an illusory. If not (exponentially), then what’s the use of taking any action, as we’re just a bunch of cells directed by a bunch of neurons? What’s the use of taking any action, as we’re made up of atoms and particles that ‘are not things’ and which, in any case, are not ‘us’?
Why, because it is Bodhicaryavatara, the Middle Way, the right view leading to the right meditation leading to the right action.
I sometimes wonder if Buddhism hasn’t become more than one thing, depending upon how you approach it. (Ethics, philosophy, psychology, religion, way of life, and also metaphysics.)
Some might say what good is Buddhism, if you cannot apply it to your life or the greater world at large, (as in progress and improvement)? This would of course be a very practical way of looking at it. They may even wish to take it out into a more political sphere in order to gain further relevance. But then again, some might easily say that this was Dream Buddhism, or only an application to a dream.
And:
So enters metaphysics as a less earthy application. Because some might say that without the concept (or rather the possibility) of Liberation, what has actually changed? Wouldn’t a practical Buddhism merely be a temporary fix for a temporary world?
This leads me, personally, to think that both of these together are more of a whole.
Is one use of Buddhism in service of the other Buddhism? Does the practical (as in the doing of it) lead to the metaphysical understanding? Or does the metaphysical by creating Clarity, go on to create the more practical applications as a byproduct?
This brings us back to Right View. Is Right View an idea, a holy concept, which we finally see? (Dogma) Or is Right View just one of these 8 fold symptoms that grows naturally out of our own added Clarity, much as it did originally for the Buddha?
Would it be one size fits all, once we found this one holy concept, or would it be a more flexible application of Clarity to what ever comes about in the practical sense, acceptance of what is, and what is needed in the diverse situations that continue to present themselves?
But also, what might Right View bring about on the metaphysical level. Might it not be (rather) a dis-identification with this dreaming world and all of her ego inhabitants (AKA transcendence)?
The whole idea that there might be a ‘Wrong View’ brings this down to earth, and sees it as being more dualist than I personally prefer to do. I think, myself, the Buddha was a very thorough fellow. If Right View actually had this opposite, the ‘Wrong View’, he certainly would have brought it up and spoken at length about it.
There is one last way of see 'Right View', Right View may be the Clarity to see that we actally do nothing, (by looking directly) and that all of this world is actually going on quite automatically. (Wu Wei) We, on the other hand, are not of this world. (In it, but not of it.)
Warm Regards,
S9
Yes, as it relates to the 140th discourse contained within the Suttapitaka, the Majjhima-Nikaya. Within which we are also reminded of their interdependencies, impermanence, and insubstantiality.
thanks a lot rizenfenix