Can we think about what we see?

Discussion
1

Basically, the question is: in our day-to-day life, we feel that the things we think are based on what we see. However, according to the Dhamma, as I have heard, this is not possible. If so, how does it happen in reality?

2

We learn as young children, for example, to give meaning to different sounds.
Apart from a non-verbal meaning, sounds coming from a mouth of someone, do not yet have a meaning for a very young child.

Later, certains sounds we learn to distinguish as the letter A, Z, B etc. Then we learn that combinations of sounds represent words. Then combinations of words we learn as sentences


At some moment in time we are not even able anymore to merely here sounds coming out someone mouth. We hear immediately meaningsful-sounds, ie. words and sentences. That must be some trickery, right?

Apparantly the brain/ mind are able to give meaning to sounds so quickly they we believe that we hear meaningsful-sound, words. It seems like the external sense info is so quickly given a meaning that we think that meaning is out there, given.

So, what we perceive is extremely rapid given meaning and we tend to believe this meaning is intrinsic to what we see, hear, feel etc. While it are really successive stages of cognition, i believe.

We also cannot see trees. The eye can see colour, shapes but not trees. Tree is a concept. We call something a tree
if
and then many conditions must be met.
For example
is it really a tree or a bush? How to distinguish? And suppose we see an imitation tree made of metal, do we see a tree? Is the metal shape of a tree really a tree? Suppose all branches are gone and there is only still a stem? Is that a tree?
Oke, it is tree. But suppose now this stem is only 1 meter tall. Is it still a tree or was it once a tree? When an acorn sprouts when can we call it an oak tree? Is there some exact moment in time?

If you think about it, there is a lot going on before we call something a tree. It seems all so naturally given but it is not, i believe.

But somehow this becomes our world, a meaningful world. We seem inclined to forget this meaningful world is a mind-made world. It is not really out there, i believe. Buddha describes how formations for us have constant the meaning, I, me, myself, mine. But is this some given reality, are is also this meaning mind-made and an operation that the mind does.

1 Like
3

Where did you read that this is not possible?

4

I think MN18 Madhupindikasutta - The Honeycake Sutta has some relevance here. I’ve just finished a deep dive on this sutta listening to talks by a few different Monastics. Ajahn Brahmali’s analysis was particularly helpful from a practical perspective of the role attention plays in the whole process. I encourage you to check it out. Here’s a relevant excerpt.

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think about, you proliferate. What you proliferate is the source from which judgments driven by proliferating perceptions beset a person. This occurs with respect to sights known by the eye in the past, future, and present.

1 Like
5

Can you please provide a link to Ajhan Brahmali’s talk.

1 Like
6

Here you go.
MN18 analysis starts around 19:40

2 Likes
7

In this sutta SN 48.42 it says following

“Mister Gotama, these five faculties have different scopes and different ranges, and don’t experience each others’ scope and range.
“pañcimāni, bhō gōtama, indriyāni nānāvisayāni nānāgōcarāni, na aññamaññassa gōcaravisayaṁ paccanubhōnti.
What five?
katamāni pañca?
The faculties of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body.
cakkhundriyaṁ, sōtindriyaṁ, ghānindriyaṁ, jivhindriyaṁ, kāyindriyaṁ.

The only doubt is that the mind is missing here.

8

In this sutta, MN 18 what I understood is that a layperson (without right vision) considers all six senses, including the mind, as interconnected, as per the quote below. However, in the case of a person with right vision, all of them are disconnected?

mind, ideas, and mind consciousness, it will be possible to discover evidence of contact. 

manasmiṁ sati dhammē sati manōviññāṇē sati phassapaññattiṁ paññāpēssatīti—ṭhānamētaṁ vijjati.
Where there is evidence of contact, it will be possible to discover evidence of feeling.
phassapaññattiyā sati vēdanāpaññattiṁ paññāpēssatīti—ṭhānamētaṁ vijjati.
Where there is evidence of feeling, it will be possible to discover evidence of perception.
vēdanāpaññattiyā sati saññāpaññattiṁ paññāpēssatīti—ṭhānamētaṁ vijjati.
Where there is evidence of perception, it will be possible to discover evidence of thinking.
saññāpaññattiyā sati vitakkapaññattiṁ paññāpēssatīti—ṭhānamētaṁ vijjati.
Where there is evidence of thinking, it will be possible to discover evidence of being beset by judgments driven by proliferating perceptions.
vitakkapaññattiyā sati papañcasaññāsaṅkhāsamudācaraṇapaññattiṁ paññāpēssatīti—ṭhānamētaṁ vijjati.

9

I understand this more as a causal sequence going from sensory experience to perception and thinking. Knowing how this internal process works and how this whole perceptual sequence is driven by the quality of attention we bring to it one can guide it into generating wholesome states such as loving-kindness for progress on the path.

The critical point begins at 8:00 in this session of Ajahn Brahmali’s great analysis.

1 Like
10

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.

The next line in the SN 48.42 is, “These five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to the mind. And the mind experiences their scopes and ranges.”

1 Like
11

You should read the continuation of the sutta.

These five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to the mind. And the mind experiences their scopes and ranges.

Imesaṁ kho, brāhmaṇa, pañcannaṁ indriyānaṁ nānāvisayānaṁ nānāgocarānaṁ na aññamaññassa gocaravisayaṁ paccanubhontānaṁ mano paṭisaraṇaṁ, manova nesaṁ gocaravisayaṁ paccanubhotī”ti.

Or mn 43

That is the faculties of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. What do these five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to? What experiences their scopes and ranges?”

“These five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to the mind.

1 Like
12

In my view, ‘Uṇṇābha the Brahmin’ asked about five faculties except the mind here (which is the mano indriya). Normally, the Buddha doesn’t add anything more than what the opponent mentions. Based on that rule, I assume that mano here refers to viññāṇa.

13

Unnabha already knew this. Hence the continuation of the questions. A non returner will know all these things except the complete freedom.

Sometime in sutta, someone will just confirm again what he has understood.

This is why Buddha said if he died right away, he will not come back.

If he were to pass away at this time, he would be bound by no fetter that might return him to this world.”

14

Can we see what we think about?

I could answer with a yes by moving 3 of your words around!

But if I’ve got this wrong and your question is a solid: Can we think about what we see?

Then personally and in my own opinion then, No.

What you’ve seen has already been! :dove:

15

I agree, may be he had confused with viññāṇa and mano indriya

16

There are 6 vinnana(s) as well.

So Mano Indriya (senses) is connected with Mano Vinnana (the knowing).

SN 12.2.

And what is consciousness?
Katamañca, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṁ?

There are these six classes of consciousness.
Chayime, bhikkhave, viññāṇakāyā—

Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind consciousness.
cakkhuviññāṇaṁ, sotaviññāṇaṁ, ghānaviññāṇaṁ, jivhāviññāṇaṁ, kāyaviññāṇaṁ, manoviññāṇaṁ.

This is called consciousness.
Idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṁ.

He might not know fully yet the freedom from Jhana. Because knowing this will need complete let go. A householder is not there yet completely. But very close.

17

Yes.

But to think free from confusion is the difficult part and requires having an understanding of what language is and its function.

Language is used by the being to make sense of sensory data input through the 5 senses. A symbol or a word gains its meaning through the mind imputing a feeling-image into the symbol through the aggregate of thought (abstraction). The functions of language are: sense making, communication with other minds, and navigating the sensory plane.

The word ‘hot’ for example gains its meaning by placing ones hand near a pan with fire applied to its base. ‘Pain’ is when one places their hand onto such an object which causes one to recoil through dislike of the sensation.

However, because of innate ignorance at birth, human beings do not have an automatic insight into how the thinking process operates. Therefore, the individual may find themselves lost within thought out of habit and cling, without realising, to mental abstractions and create all sorts of unhelpful clinging to a fixed idea of themselves which is rigid, not changing, and leads to the arising of psychological pain i.e. dukkha. The exclamation of “Oh, suffering!” With an urgency or need to uproot it because of a lack of present ease in ones mind and body leads one to examine what is causing this pain which leads to understanding, insight, and then the capacity to uproot.

We are not born with insight into the four foundations of mindfulness i.e. how mind operates, by which mechanism, how the body operates, by which mechanism it operates, how or why feelings occur, by which mechanism they operate and are senses, and how phenomenon operate (elements for example), by what mechanism they operate as well as their function. This is developed.

The four W’s and one H
 How, what, where, when and why are helpful tools for reflection of a specific topic.

Insight into the four foundations is developed over a period of a time based on a ‘need to know’, interest, and urgency basis.

The term: the finger that points to the Moon isn’t the Moon itself. The name of the thing isn’t the ‘thing’ in itself. The word ‘tree’ is not :deciduous_tree:. This realisation, although apparently simple, was profound for me, and helped me disengage with habitual thinking and avoid thickets of views through realising the nature of the thing(:deciduous_tree:)-in itself as compared to the name, idea or word about such.

Confusion leads to ouchies which leads to examination (on the condition one wishes to move away from ouchies or work to live an ouch free existence) which in turn leads to understanding.

18

Isn’t this what perception is? Our senses sense something and our minds perceive what it is. The Buddha said that perception is a mirage. By stilling the body and the mental formations, the mental defilements can be seen and removed. Only then can samadhi arise. Then one can see things as they really are, the path of the Buddha.

"Good, good, Anuruddha and friends! But as you live diligently like this, have you achieved any superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones, a comfortable meditation?”
“Well, sir, while meditating diligent, keen, and resolute, we perceive both light and vision of forms. But before long the light and the vision of forms vanish. We haven’t worked out the basis of that.”
“Well, you should work out the basis of that. Before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I too perceived light and vision of forms. But before long my light and vision of forms vanished. It occurred to me: ‘What’s the cause, what’s the reason why my light and vision of forms vanish?’ It occurred to me: ‘Doubt arose in me, and because of that my immersion fell away. When immersion falls away, the light and vision of forms vanish. I’ll make sure that doubt will not arise in me again.


After understanding that doubt, loss of focus, dullness and drowsiness, terror, excitement, discomfort, excessive energy, overly lax energy, longing, perception of diversity, and excessive concentration on forms are corruptions of the mind, I had given them up.
I thought: ‘I’ve given up my mental corruptions. Now let me develop immersion in three ways.’ I developed immersion while placing the mind and keeping it connected; without placing the mind, merely keeping it connected; without placing the mind or keeping it connected; with rapture; without rapture; with pleasure; with equanimity. <
MN128

1 Like
19

I agree, so ‘think about what we see’ is the result of avijja

1 Like