hmmm...old conversation, but still may I add? Your understanding of the skhandas is very Mahayana, and more intellectually elaborate that what the Pali tradition will give us. I have found that these added layers of reflection do not bring any more immediacy to their transparency in the clear silent light of being. So why not go with the economy model? Sorry, my comment maybe completely inappropriate since I have not viewed the video to which this is a response. Thanks you for your work here!
The remote control is empty of inherent existence. It's a collection of interdependent parts and nothing more. If the remote control was smashed into pieces, there would be no "remote control spirit" residing in the buttons or the battery or the infrared LED.
the skandha of perception is in control of thoughts, sights, sounds. it gives names to these. The 4th is called mental formations/volition. This skandha is our collected intentions over our various lives aswell as the ability to willfully make intentions. Since karma is basiclly our intentions it is this skandha that we use to change our karma by creating positive intentions.
Then I ask you: what school of Buddhism? Zen? Hardly Buddhism, but a Japanized version that relies on less of the sutras and the oral lineage and more on a comatose, zoned out mindfulness on nothing at all. And another question: could you please describe the "western tradition" of analysis as you claim and how it differs from Buddhism...if your position is to have any credibility.
One could say that your comment was so offensive that it demonstrates an intellect that is so childish and undereducated regarding the topic and just wants to stir something that it's twice as hilarious, but I might be jumping to conclusions. Ease back, Jack. You're just pulling things out of thin air.
Emptiness simply means that the remote control and all of its smallest components are PROJECTIONS of consciousness. It nor its parts have any separate identity of its own, no independent reality of its own. IT'S A HOLOGRAM THAT FUNCTIONS. And it is our minds that create the illusion...and it's functions. The goal in Buddhism is to stop having HUMAN projections and to learn to create those of the highest point of evolution: that of a Buddha.
The skandhas: form/matter; feeling/sensation; discrimination; consciousness (subtle consciousness, that is); and other factors that do not fit into those already mentioned.
Except for feeling, the skandhas you list are actually mental functions. The skandhas compose the being from the level of the material SEEN parts, down to the immaterial UNSEEN parts. Remove matter from reality, and you have electrochemical reality. Below that, radionuclear...so on down to Plaank and then Zero Field.
Conception is misplaced here. Conception, which is thinking arises in the level of matter. Think of it like this: mind is created by brain activity, which happens in the level of matter. But CONCSIOUSNESS is deeper, and it causes brain. Conception is not the basis of perception. In fact, that would be the other way around. You perceive something and THEN think about it. These are not the correct skandhas as they are taught in multitudes of sutras.
The Buddha taught that things have a function, and that those functions APPEAR to be independent of projections of consciousness. So, to a lower school practitioner, they will assert a type of "essence". Based upon the APPARENT reality of the phenomenon, it is not untrue to talk about its "essence". However, the ultimate reality of that phenomena is not self-powered, it is reliant upon projections of consciousness. So, from the standpoint of inherent existence, that phenomena is empty.
I find this comment not just disconcerting, but clearly uneducated...not a criticism, just an observation. Buddhist philosophical systems and schools are CLEARLY much more analytical than you must be aware. The Buddha's request to study his words and analyse them until you yourself understand them above any kind of respect for him is very important. Don't know where you get the idea that that is an oxymoron.
I disagree in the sense that what what has classically been considered 'analysis' in the West isn't the form of introspective thought that would be recognized as that in Buddhism...Btw you strike me as someone who is trying to prove their intellect...I'm not in that contest..Maybe its' the difference between an oxymoron and and koan...In fact, I think it is that...Except to say that your comment was so defensive that it was hilarious.
Trying to prove my intellect? Are you serious with that argument? If you're going to post things that are patently incorrect about Buddhism I'm going to correct you. Sorry, if that gets labeled as you have labeled it, SO BE IT.
What is the Classical consideration of "analysis?" And what school of Buddhism are you connecting this with? I think the fact that there are four schools of subtler understandings of emptiness and phenomenon show an application of critical analysis...
I don't come away from my study of Buddhism with the same conclusions. No, I don't think there is as much overlap with Western traditions of analytic thought as you insist on, but beyond that I have nothing more to add.
Your understanding of "introspection" is simply taking a VERSION of meditation (Shar sGom, meaning "review meditation" and 'Juk sGom meaning "fixed meditation") as the object you are denying. dByed sGom, meaning analytic meditation is the version that contends your assertion. This type of analysis is nothing different than what you posit as "classical....in the West." Where is the difference then?
A certain concordance with the increase in complexity of the human organism and its internal perceptions: reptilian brain - impulse; mammalian limbic system - basic emotions; neocortex (also in monkeys and apes) - symbolic thought; complex neocortex - conceptual thought; SF1 - concrete operational; SF2 - formal operational cognition; SF3 - postformal operational thinking (essentially vision-logic and beyond, even higher integration than ever before).
I understand what you are saying about pain and hunger, but in order for you to live in this experience of self. You have to feed this body. So I see it as a sort of catch 22. Maybe it is for you to live now. And feel the being of inner, self as well as the projection of our ego. It sounds like a balancing act between the two. Still learning learning the buddhist teachings. So Im not an expert.
matt...i am impressed of your understanding of the metaphysical constructs of buddhist phylosophy....looking forward to more from you....this is heavy duty stuff that gets overlooked because people get discouraged by the "double speak" of chinese and tibetan philosophy, which really envelops the duality of existence..that which exists and that which creates and is unseen and unperceived by us
I enjoyed this video on Buddhism. Thought provoking stuff. The part of consciousness and of matter being out there, and being in the brain and all form being empty. It's as though things and people can only seem to exist if they are part of an experience or observed in life. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Matt, good explanation of the skandas. I think the hardest thing for people to intuit about the teachings of emptiness, dependent origination and how they exist is that we usually get caught by a particular emotion and can't see through it. For an example, many younger Buddhist practitioners have given up on meditation after they got hurt in a relationship. The clinging to the other person causes so much pain that they can't sustain their practice to get beyond who they think they are.
Matt... I enjoyed your video. Perhaps a more apt title could have been "Buddhist Analysis of Attachment and Suffering" rather than "experience". As you moved down the typology at the beginning of the video, you decided to "park" the 5th skanda (consciousness)... I am wondering if at some point you might try your hand at explaining this skanda vis-a-vis consciousness as you understand it i.e, informed by integrative theories, panexperientialism, etc
Yeah, glad you caught that. It's complex and was a bit tangental to what Nick was trying to get across, which is part of the reason I parked it. The other reason is that I want to get a better understanding of Yogacara before I try to compare it to anything else.
hmmm...old conversation, but still may I add? Your understanding of the skhandas is very Mahayana, and more intellectually elaborate that what the Pali tradition will give us. I have found that these added layers of reflection do not bring any more immediacy to their transparency in the clear silent light of being. So why not go with the economy model? Sorry, my comment maybe completely inappropriate since I have not viewed the video to which this is a response. Thanks you for your work here!
empty0grace 5 months ago
Excellent video, by the way. Well articulated.
AlaskanSky 2 years ago
The remote control is empty of inherent existence. It's a collection of interdependent parts and nothing more. If the remote control was smashed into pieces, there would be no "remote control spirit" residing in the buttons or the battery or the infrared LED.
AlaskanSky 2 years ago
the skandha of perception is in control of thoughts, sights, sounds. it gives names to these. The 4th is called mental formations/volition. This skandha is our collected intentions over our various lives aswell as the ability to willfully make intentions. Since karma is basiclly our intentions it is this skandha that we use to change our karma by creating positive intentions.
vshov 2 years ago
you've got the 3rd and the 4th confused
vshov 2 years ago
Then I ask you: what school of Buddhism? Zen? Hardly Buddhism, but a Japanized version that relies on less of the sutras and the oral lineage and more on a comatose, zoned out mindfulness on nothing at all. And another question: could you please describe the "western tradition" of analysis as you claim and how it differs from Buddhism...if your position is to have any credibility.
dropspin5678 3 years ago
One could say that your comment was so offensive that it demonstrates an intellect that is so childish and undereducated regarding the topic and just wants to stir something that it's twice as hilarious, but I might be jumping to conclusions. Ease back, Jack. You're just pulling things out of thin air.
dropspin5678 3 years ago
Whoa that was cool! . . . I wouldn't have said like this myself...
MaBu888 3 years ago
Emptiness simply means that the remote control and all of its smallest components are PROJECTIONS of consciousness. It nor its parts have any separate identity of its own, no independent reality of its own. IT'S A HOLOGRAM THAT FUNCTIONS. And it is our minds that create the illusion...and it's functions. The goal in Buddhism is to stop having HUMAN projections and to learn to create those of the highest point of evolution: that of a Buddha.
dropspin5678 3 years ago
The skandhas: form/matter; feeling/sensation; discrimination; consciousness (subtle consciousness, that is); and other factors that do not fit into those already mentioned.
Except for feeling, the skandhas you list are actually mental functions. The skandhas compose the being from the level of the material SEEN parts, down to the immaterial UNSEEN parts. Remove matter from reality, and you have electrochemical reality. Below that, radionuclear...so on down to Plaank and then Zero Field.
dropspin5678 3 years ago
Conception is misplaced here. Conception, which is thinking arises in the level of matter. Think of it like this: mind is created by brain activity, which happens in the level of matter. But CONCSIOUSNESS is deeper, and it causes brain. Conception is not the basis of perception. In fact, that would be the other way around. You perceive something and THEN think about it. These are not the correct skandhas as they are taught in multitudes of sutras.
dropspin5678 3 years ago
The Buddha taught that things have a function, and that those functions APPEAR to be independent of projections of consciousness. So, to a lower school practitioner, they will assert a type of "essence". Based upon the APPARENT reality of the phenomenon, it is not untrue to talk about its "essence". However, the ultimate reality of that phenomena is not self-powered, it is reliant upon projections of consciousness. So, from the standpoint of inherent existence, that phenomena is empty.
dropspin5678 3 years ago
"Buddhist analysis" seems like an oxymoron...
What you've done here seems like a very Western take on Buddhism...
Owen Flannagan often points out how we in the West insist on doing this...It's not a criticism btw...just an observation.
2bsirius 3 years ago 3
I would readily admit to this.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
I find this comment not just disconcerting, but clearly uneducated...not a criticism, just an observation. Buddhist philosophical systems and schools are CLEARLY much more analytical than you must be aware. The Buddha's request to study his words and analyse them until you yourself understand them above any kind of respect for him is very important. Don't know where you get the idea that that is an oxymoron.
dropspin5678 3 years ago
I disagree in the sense that what what has classically been considered 'analysis' in the West isn't the form of introspective thought that would be recognized as that in Buddhism...Btw you strike me as someone who is trying to prove their intellect...I'm not in that contest..Maybe its' the difference between an oxymoron and and koan...In fact, I think it is that...Except to say that your comment was so defensive that it was hilarious.
2bsirius 3 years ago
Trying to prove my intellect? Are you serious with that argument? If you're going to post things that are patently incorrect about Buddhism I'm going to correct you. Sorry, if that gets labeled as you have labeled it, SO BE IT.
What is the Classical consideration of "analysis?" And what school of Buddhism are you connecting this with? I think the fact that there are four schools of subtler understandings of emptiness and phenomenon show an application of critical analysis...
dropspin5678 3 years ago
I don't come away from my study of Buddhism with the same conclusions. No, I don't think there is as much overlap with Western traditions of analytic thought as you insist on, but beyond that I have nothing more to add.
2bsirius 3 years ago
Your understanding of "introspection" is simply taking a VERSION of meditation (Shar sGom, meaning "review meditation" and 'Juk sGom meaning "fixed meditation") as the object you are denying. dByed sGom, meaning analytic meditation is the version that contends your assertion. This type of analysis is nothing different than what you posit as "classical....in the West." Where is the difference then?
dropspin5678 3 years ago
A certain concordance with the increase in complexity of the human organism and its internal perceptions: reptilian brain - impulse; mammalian limbic system - basic emotions; neocortex (also in monkeys and apes) - symbolic thought; complex neocortex - conceptual thought; SF1 - concrete operational; SF2 - formal operational cognition; SF3 - postformal operational thinking (essentially vision-logic and beyond, even higher integration than ever before).
MaBu888 3 years ago
BRAVO! AGREED!
dropspin5678 3 years ago
Hey Matt have you watched any Dr. Tommy Gouranga vids? Excellent synthesis of synthetic sylables.
desheik 3 years ago
awesome video dude
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago
You're talking to someone (TMM) who thinks 'spiritual' is meaningless. (Is his online-moniker ironic then?)
This is because he has not realised something fundamental about language.
He has reached a door, & on that door it says 'THE ANSWER'.
He opens the door now & again, but quickly closes it because what he sees scares him.
So he settles for the words ON the door & twiddles his beard.
¿
Umpa, umpa...
TWITfromURANUS 3 years ago 2
I understand what you are saying about pain and hunger, but in order for you to live in this experience of self. You have to feed this body. So I see it as a sort of catch 22. Maybe it is for you to live now. And feel the being of inner, self as well as the projection of our ego. It sounds like a balancing act between the two. Still learning learning the buddhist teachings. So Im not an expert.
findreligion 3 years ago
matt...i am impressed of your understanding of the metaphysical constructs of buddhist phylosophy....looking forward to more from you....this is heavy duty stuff that gets overlooked because people get discouraged by the "double speak" of chinese and tibetan philosophy, which really envelops the duality of existence..that which exists and that which creates and is unseen and unperceived by us
bobtommsncom 3 years ago
I enjoyed this video on Buddhism. Thought provoking stuff. The part of consciousness and of matter being out there, and being in the brain and all form being empty. It's as though things and people can only seem to exist if they are part of an experience or observed in life. Sorry if I misunderstood.
HaleyMary 3 years ago
Matt, good explanation of the skandas. I think the hardest thing for people to intuit about the teachings of emptiness, dependent origination and how they exist is that we usually get caught by a particular emotion and can't see through it. For an example, many younger Buddhist practitioners have given up on meditation after they got hurt in a relationship. The clinging to the other person causes so much pain that they can't sustain their practice to get beyond who they think they are.
tonygem 3 years ago
Matt... I enjoyed your video. Perhaps a more apt title could have been "Buddhist Analysis of Attachment and Suffering" rather than "experience". As you moved down the typology at the beginning of the video, you decided to "park" the 5th skanda (consciousness)... I am wondering if at some point you might try your hand at explaining this skanda vis-a-vis consciousness as you understand it i.e, informed by integrative theories, panexperientialism, etc
granvilleguy 3 years ago
Yeah, glad you caught that. It's complex and was a bit tangental to what Nick was trying to get across, which is part of the reason I parked it. The other reason is that I want to get a better understanding of Yogacara before I try to compare it to anything else.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago