Commenting on the recent post https://riswey.blogspot.com/2025/05/a-clearer-view-of-existence-and-how.html
So the key insights here are:
(1) phenomena arise under their own causes and conditions. There is no need for the "observer." This contrasts with the Western view that experience and consciousness in some way involved an observer.
(2) The field in which experiences arise is infinite. In the West we put a "mind" boundary around experiences and say these are mine those are yours. In Buddhism there is just an infinite field in which these unfold under their own steam.
(3) Because phenomena arise as themselves and have no need of an outside observer it means that the only thing being painful when there is pain is the pain itself. There is no pain anywhere else but the pain itself. Because of the above Western views that drag in an observer when there is pain that pain goes on to infect the observer and what was pain becomes what is called "suffering." Because of the finite "mind" limit the pain seems to be contained in this bubble and it feels like we are trapped with it. But none of this actually exists it is just false conception. Buddha calls this the "double arrow."
(4) A fundamental error. In the West we have objective reality and we have science and knowledge. But actually all this is knowledge. This is why noumena and phenomena is such a troublesome distinction. What can we know of the world before we know it seems nonsense. In Structuralism there is the argument, because we communicate interpersonally in language that there is nothing outside language. Well we can use SRH and Godel to bust this. If all that exists must be sayable then what is language itself? Well perception is a key concept. The "rope or snake illusion in a darkened room." There is something there in the darkness but we are struggling to perceive it into a "rope" or a "snake". This clearly separates the unsayable from the sayable.
Now a bigger distinction is Nama (name) and Rupa (form) and I have got this wrong throughout this blog from the very start. Consciousness is the emergence of things into knowing. And while perception is a fairly easy stage to experience there are two stages prior to this, but the come together. Say we hear the sharp attack of a brilliant bird song. Now there is silence and then something definitely happens. It is no dream or imagination it is clearly distinguishable as a real event. Now the appearance of this is the creation of consciousness. We have no idea what it is yet, we are just hit by an occurrence. Experiencing this hit we can discern it into two parts: the brilliant awareness which is an active apprehension of the sound. And I have previously stopped here. You cannot know what is unknown and so consciousness must be the start of knowing. But even thinking about that we can see a problem. Consciousness is no simple thing it is a highly sophisticated phenomenon and we would want to intellectually distinguish between consciousness and what we are conscious of. The West does indeed do this. But where we look for what we are conscious of differs. The actual location of the prior is actually there with consciousness. It is called "rupa" and it is the instinctive sense of a reality to our consciousness. We cannot put our finger on rupa because it is prior to any mental phenomena and even consciousness but this does not mean it is not arrestable. Now compare with is the idea of noumena which is a mental construct to make sense of reasoning that suggests that phenomena arise from a world that is unknown. However noumena are unknowable and reside in a mystery place. My whole philosophical existence has failed here trying to find a seat for phenomena and failing multiple times, primarily because I have unwittingly tied the self into the framework. An instance was the recognition that all senses and so the whole world is really part of a field of consciousness however that field was then put in a noumenal bag I called "me." A complete disaster. Now there are schools of Buddhism that focus on the emptiness and so rupa becomes nothing leaving only mind. And the danger of rupa is that unless extremely careful it becomes a concept and so gets lifted far away from experience into mental construct.
ChatGPT provides an analogy here. Consciousness is like a mirror, and rupa are the reflections in the mirror. This is actually a useful analogy especially when considering the mirror reflection of our self. Clearly the reflection is not really me: it doesn't actually look back, it is just a reflection of me looking. The reflection is inanimate and is just what it is. Meanwhile consciousness is the active involved component of sensation that brings the entity into vivid reality.
(5) Thoughts are the same as other experiences. So using "rupa" ChatGPT points out that the 5 main sense have an actual "form" or object of sense. The mind does not. Previously I assumed a thought was a real entity like a cat. But its actually quite obvious that while a picture of a cat is a picture and a cat is a cat, a picture when it comes to thought has no rupa. Now this is quite a major shift to this blog. Previously thought was considered on a level playing field with any other content of consciousness but once rupa is established we need to pay more attention the "physical" things as these are the "origin" of knowledge and reality.
And this has a deep bearing on lots of things. Previously mental activity was just that and all we needed to do was recognise it as such without grasping and holding. But rupa provides a genuine grounding to he mind.
In meditation I have read that examining the rupa/nama boundary is a key target of examination. That now makes sense if rupa is the passive prior component of experience. It seems a contradiction to be speaking about things before they are known but because the West adds an observer here we think that until I know the object it has no existence. But once we remove the observer we are just talking about things as they are. Consciousness is conscious, no one makes consciousness conscious. It is not like we need to add a strawberry to a strawberry to give it its taste. A strawberry has this taste. True we must eat it to create a consciousness of that taste but consciousness and strawberry is enough: nothing else needs to be added - certainly no additional observer to give it some extra "knowing".
So without the observer then when senses and objects come into contact then they are in contact. That is all that is needed to cause a sensation. No one needs to turn up on top of this to observe and validate this: it already happened. And in that happening we have the rupa and the start of the nama. It is already there instantly when they are in contact.
It is this possibility of rupa that gives grounding to everything. Previously that was lost as I become "consciousness only." Godel should have warned me: If consciousness is everything, then what is conscious of consciousness! It is rupa!
(6) Having a "real" grounding means a more measured approach. Not everything is just another film. There are good and bad films, but ultimately who cares. Well there is a reality, it is just prior to any mental activity. Films are ultimately of a filmed reality. Given this grounding it occurs to me a wiser approach in to liberation. We can point people not to the swirling ungrounded nature of thought, but actually to the still rupa underneath it all. And that stillness should really be the source pf wisdom, not familiarity with the swirling kaleidoscope of mental formations.
No comments:
Post a Comment