I don’t believe I have asserted these things and I asked for you to go back and check carefully. If I did assert these things, then I was in error as I’ve explained.
Understood. Thank you for your answers. I don’t have any more questions.
Then you also assert that some things are saccato thetato?
What do you assert to be that?
It was confusing for me too. Have to sleep on it for some time
Thank you for the chat, gl
No, I don’t assert this.
Namo Buddhaya!
When asked whether you assert that nothing constitutes saccato thetato - you say no
When asked whether something constitutes saccato thetato - you say no
Do you assert that the word ‘saccato thetato’ has no referent?
As i see it, the word does have a referent and when the referable exists then the word is used.
I can’t say that the referent is the same thing as the word because the word is the word and the referent is that to which the word refers.
The referent is whatever it is except the word which is a label given to it.
So if i use the word ‘word’ it’s referent is whatever it is except the label ‘word’.
Likewise if i use the word ‘saccato thetato’ in reference to the word ‘saccato thetato’ then the referent is the requisite conception & perception of the label.
Therefore i don’t need to further prove that there exists something referable because the very conception & perception of the label establishes it as a fact.
Essentially the analysis of words by using words, at this point, turns on itself as it bottoms out in the aggregated application of form, consciousness, feeling, perception, and formation.
It turns out that any symbol, word, or label, is but a consecutive application of form, consciousness, feeling, perception, and formation.
For example the written word is but a consecutive application of form as ink to paper and this application is cognized, perceived, felt, and created.
Likewise the heard word, is but a consecutive application of perceived sound cognized & created.
Likewise the thinking of a word is but a consecutive application of thought.
Now this goes for any word including the words ‘exists’, ‘form’, ‘consciousness’, ‘feeling’, ‘perception’, and ‘formation’. Therefore it bottoms out as it turns on itself.
The words ‘form’, ‘consciousness’, ‘feeling’, ‘perception’, and ‘formation’, are of course only symbols and therefore empty & hollow as a roadmap is empty of roads.
Thus when the aggregates are present different words are used such as ‘a being’ or ‘river’ but one can’t pin these things down whereas the existence of the aggregates is asserted by default as it is required to talk about any of this.
“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a
‘sentient being’?
Māra, have you come up with a view?
This is just a pile of sankharā,
you won’t find a sentient being here.When the parts are assembled
we use the word ‘chariot’.
So too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.But it’s only suffering that comes to be,
lasts a while, then disappears.
Naught but suffering comes to be,
naught but suffering ceases.”
I don’t believe I said this and have requested that you go back and check carefully. If I did say it, then I was in error as I have now explained many times. Unless and until you’ve gone back and looked carefully and actually found such an assertion - rather than taking it for granted that I’ve said as such - please kindly refrain from the above.
No. I’ve said many times that I’ve been unable to find any thing that holds up under a deep and penetrative analysis. That is an assertion about my own experience. I do not use a universal qualifier when I state as such.
It seems to me that when we use words effectively they act as sort of agreements. I don’t rule out that the words ‘saccato thetato’ can be used as an effective agreement. However, I don’t agree that the words ‘saccato thetato’ are particularly useful or effective when used to describe a referent that is also characterized as ‘void, hollow, and insubstantial.’
Let’s sum this up. As i understand it
1
Nothing can be pinned down as truth & reality
- This you do not assert
2
Something can be pinned down as to truth & reality
- This you do not assert
3
Nothing constitutes a truth & reality
- This you do not assert
4
Something constitutes a truth & reality
- This you do not assert
5
There is no truth & reality
- This you do not assert
6
There is a truth & reality
- ?
Is this a correct representation of your statements?
Correct. I do not assert those statements nor this last one.
Also you do not assert any of this
- There both is & isn’t a truth & reality
- There neither is nor isn’t a truth & reality
- Something both can be pinned down & can not be pinned as truth & reality
- Something neither can be pinned down & can not be pinned down as truth & reality
- Something both constitites & does not constitute a truth & reality
- Something neither constitutes nor doesn’t constitute a truth & reality
I don’t understand what you mean by ‘sort of effective agreements’
Could there be any referent which is not insubstantial? If not then are you not saying that these words are useless & ineffective in general?
No, I don’t. However, I’m afraid you are assuming something that isn’t the case. I’m afraid you are assuming that because I don’t assert the above that I’m winking or hinting at a profound truth that I’ve realized that is somehow beyond words or logic or something. As I’ve said many times, what I perceive when I look at myself is just a lowly being with very little to no actual knowledge. I’m emphatically not trying to wink at or hint at some profound knowledge that I’ve laid claim to.
My lack of assertions of the above should not be read as hinting at or claiming some profound knowledge, but rather just honest statements of my own lowly experience. I have various hypothesis and ideas, but very little when it comes to actual direct knowledge and that’s what I’m intending to communicate when I say that I don’t assert the above.
It is simply the case, that when I’ve looked for some thing that holds up under deep and penetrative analysis I’ve utterly failed to find some thing which does so and not for lack of trying. Were I to claim that some thing does hold up when I look with analysis, I wouldn’t be saying that honestly. Were I to claim that nothing whatsoever could ever hold up under such analysis, I wouldn’t be saying that honestly as I don’t have a direct proof or knowledge that that is the case.
I can say honestly that it is my hypothesis that I will never be able to find any thing that holds up under such analysis, but that would still be just a hypothesis and in no way would constitute a proof of direct knowledge. The reason I have such a hypothesis is because of my failure to find any thing that does so far and it isn’t for lack of trying. When Iooking at myself I perceive someone who has been honestly looking for some thing that does hold up under analysis very diligently for a very long time. I perceive someone who is not without some skill in analysis. I perceive someone who understands and is fairly skilled in many different forms of analysis: math, physics, logic, language, reasoning, etc. Still, it would be foolish for me to claim that I know “nothing whatsoever holds up under analysis” simply because I don’t actually know that directly. I have asserted such things in the past and I look back and think I was a fool for having asserted so.
That’s why I asked you to look carefully and see if I’ve asserted such here. I don’t think I have, but if I have I’d like to know as I’m trying hard to weed out this pernicious habit so I don’t make the mistake again. You would be doing me a kindness if you could point out such an error so that I may recognize it and thus help to do away with it.
I just mean that we use words and names as shared agreements or conventions.
I’ve yet to find any referent that holds up under deep and penetrative analysis. It is my hope that you’ll accept this statement at face value and not as some claim to profound knowledge on my part. I only mean it as an honest statement of my own experience and not as some claim to direct and profound knowledge. Here only a lowly being is perceived who is only trying to be honest and straightforward with what I know and don’t know.
No need to worry about that. I keep asking because it’s interesting to figure out exactly how you think and whether any useful communication can occurr.
I think the word ‘thing’ is worth examining as to your usage of it
As i understood, by ‘holding up under deep penetrative analysis’ you mean trying to establish a referent as a thing.
Hence in as far as no referent can be established as a thing no referent holds up under deep penetrative analysis.
There are some things that need to be worked out for such analysis
Is a name something?
Is a name nothing?
Is a name a thing?
Is a thing something?
Is that which is named a thing?
Is that which is named nothing?
Is that which is named something?
As a sidenote,
When cross questioning Anuradha, in trying to pin ‘Tathahata’ as truth & reality, the teacher asked him whether ‘Tathagata’ could be pinned as the aggregates or as something apart from the aggregates.
If one asserts that he was trying to pin ‘Tathagata’ as a thing then one has to assert that the aggregated or something other than the aggregated would constitute a thing; and that the failure to establish something as the aggregated or as something else was a failure to pin it as a thing; it follows that the aggregated would be regarded as a thing, as i see it.
I don’t intend anything special by my emphasis on the word thing in the above. Whatever I’ve tried to analyse, nothing has held up under analysis. I’m without a single counterexample of something that has held up and not dissolved upon deeper inspection.
I mean an analysis of something that doesn’t dissolve upon deeper inspection.
A name seems to be just an agreement or convention that people use to try and understand or communicate. Even some dogs and animals are capable of recognizing some names as an agreement, right? Other times people take mere names to be something they are not: something that can hold up under analysis. An illustrative figurative example for me is the case of a god, a human, and a hungry ghost who walk into a bar. The god orders “ambrosia”, the human orders “water”, and the hungry ghost orders “blood and pus.” The bartender, having some wisdom, pulls out three glasses and a single bottle and pours liquid from the bottle into each of the glasses. The god drinks from his cup and recognizes ambrosia the nectar of the gods. The human drinks from his cup and recognizes plain water. The hungry ghost drinks from his cup and recognizes pus and blood. In the above case, none of the beings agree with each other what the proper name for the liquid ought to be. They’re each quite confused that the other two do not seem to agree with their preferred appellation. If they understood that none of ‘ambrosia’, ‘water’, or ‘pus and blood’ could withstand deep penetrative analysis - as the bartender surely understood - I think they’d likely be less confused.
I think Anurādha had a conception of the Teacher that did not withstand analysis. The Teacher guided Anurādha to see for himself if his conception could withstand analysis. Finding that it could not, the Teacher then pointed out that Anurādha was conceiving something that had not actually been proven or found, but was merely being taken for granted by Anurādha. This faulty assumption - not having been proven or directly known - would lead him to error and suffering; the Teacher not wanting Anurādha to suffer was trying to point out Anurādha’s faulty assumption.
Do you mean like the word ‘Chariot’ dissolves if one tries to pin it down? I assume this is what you mean.
However what about the referent of the expression ‘change occuring at non-verbal levels’ how do you figure that the referent dissolves in this case?
Another example is the non-verbal referent of the word ‘feeling’ how would you go about analyzing that which is obviously non-verbal?
Verbally referring to a so-called non-verbal referent is something that seems to dissolve when I analyse it much in the same way that the son of a barren woman dissolves.
I am not asking about the label verbally referring to a so-called non-verbal referent.
I am asking about the non-verbal referent which is being referred to verbally, how do you analyze the so-called non-verbal referent of the word ‘feeling’?
I’m quite puzzled as to your question and the construction of your question as it seems to my mind to contain a contradiction as premise. Being so puzzled and fearing miscommunication I have no idea how to answer it, sorry.
My best guess is that you are invoking some form of paraconsistent logic that allows for contradictions, but I don’t think that is a suitable framework for analysis of the kind the Teacher employed.
Therefore i wonder what analysis you apply to non-verbal referents and if you have spent any time thinking about it.
There is no contradiction.
As i understand it,
A flaw in your reasoning is revealed here.
Your analysis of referents works well up to this point but here you have a division by zero type of error.
Your analysis works for analyzing the verbal referents but breaks down when you run into a non-verbal referent.
You have been defining words with words and you are baffled when a word is defined by not a word because then you can’t dissolve the referent.
In other words you have been defining ‘feeling’ as the word ‘feeling’ and further as other words like ‘pleasant feeling’ or ‘happiness’ etc.
When defining ‘a river’ you apply reductionist methodology to get more words ‘water’, ‘molecule’, ‘atom’, ‘neutron’, etc
In a sense you have crawled up into a dictionary defining words with words.
When the ariya say ‘feeling, it feels therefore it is called ‘feeling’’ they do not mean that the name ‘feeling’ feels. The word-name-label is not that which feels, that which feels is the referent called ‘feeling’, and the referent exists on non-verbal levels represented/modeled/named ‘feeling’. The referent of the word ‘feeling’ is whatever it is but it is definitely not the name of it.
Therefore you can’t treat this referent like you can treat the name given to it. If you conflate the two taking the label for the labeled then you will be confused by it.
So how does one analyze the non-verbal?
One can only make a verbal model of the non-verbal and one avoids conflating the two as to crawl out of the dictionary.
Consequently one trains to think verbally about the non-verbal and to think verbally about the verbal as non-verbal.
The last part “to think verbally about the verbal as non-verbal” refers to developing understanding of the verbal and the non-verbal being woven from the same cloth so to speak, whether we perceive words or colors doesn’t really matter as it is just variant percipience formation.
By training like this one will see the difference and the similarity between the verbal and the non-verbal and eventually understand all formations.
You say you are verbally referring to non-verbal referents. This seems akin to something like, “This sentence is a lie” or “The son of a barren woman” which is ill-defined.
I have no idea what you mean. When did suitable or unsuitable mathematical operations enter this conversation?
You need to define what you mean by “non-verbal referent” as that is not in agreement and it seems ill-defined to my mind.
No, that is not how I define ‘feeling’ nor do I think I’ve been playing any word games.
What does this mean?? How do you propose to define words if not with other words?
Nor did I assert this.
Nor did I assert this.
Nor did I assert that you can or should conflate a label and what the label is referring to. I have no idea how you concluded that I did so conflate. You seem to be jumping once again to saying I’ve asserted something that I have not. Please go back and carefully check and tell me where you see that I’ve asserted that it is proper to conflate a label and the basis upon which that label is designated.
You seem to be assuming things and then stating as fact that I’ve said something which I have not said. Please go back and carefully check and see if this isn’t the case.
When you say “non-verbal” do you just mean the basis upon which a label is designated??
I have no idea what you mean by “crawl out of the dictionary” or again why you think I conflate a label and the basis upon which a label is designated.
Training like what? I don’t think it is particularly difficult to distinguish between a label and the basis of a label. Normally we just say “word” or “label” and the “basis” of that label or “referent” of that label. If this is all you are talking about when you say “non-verbal referent”, then the only mystery to me is why you resorted to this construction which seems ill-defined.
That which is called sensory impression.
For example ‘seeing’ is a word referring to something. If a person has no eyes he does not have that which is referred to as seeing but he is not bereft the word ‘seeing’
So the word seeing refers to something which is not a word.
The referent/basis upon which the word seeing is designated is not a word.
How do you define it?
I think i’ve explained it. Yes basis upon which label is designated.
You made the statement that saying
So i ask again what analysis do you apply to the referents/basis of words like ‘seeing’, ‘feeling’.
I prefaced my last post saying ‘As i understand it’ in adressing the confusion you expressed. It was not a statement of fact.
For example the the word ‘sour’ can hardly be defined by words. Whereas if a person eats something sour then he will know what the word means & refers to as it actually is.
Ok, this is less confusing to me.
Agreed.
Ok, I will attempt to sincerely answer your question, but I am under the weather at the moment and need to rest. I fear further miscommunication and misunderstanding, but I will brave this risk and attempt an answer when I can.
Again, you seem to be using words in an idiosyncratic way to my mind. To me words are “defined” through the use of other words. That’s what a dictionary seems to be doing. Nor do I see any great distinction between a “definition” and an “explanation” in terms of the function of a dictionary. The word I think you’re looking for is “qualia” not the word “defined”; the word “sour” is defined in dictionaries using other words, but the qualia of “sour” can only be known through direct experience.