Investigating the perceptual situation
Notes on the recent presentation by Suvannavira.
Part one:
I attended the sadhana convention at Adhisthana recently.
Lots of interesting talks by Prakasha, who has been a member of the Triratna Buddhist order for 50 years.
Various themes:
- Descent into hell and ascent into heaven in the spiritual life.
- Chakras and energy channels.
- Investigating the perceptual situation. which is our theme today.
We’ll see how the perceptual situation connects with the ideas of ‘map’ and ‘territory’.
So connection with our area of practice of speech.
IE the fourth precept, of voluntairily undertaking to avoid lying and to tell the truth.
We can investigate the perceptual situation in everyday life or in meditation.
Meditation practices are often divided into “Samatha” and “Vipassana” practices.
“Samatha” practices to develop calm or tranquility.
Practices like the “mindfulness of breathing” or the “development of loving kindness”.
“Vipassana” practices to develop Insight or clear vision.
We practice vipassana in the basis of Samatha.
Samatha is the foundation for vipassana.
When we investigate the perceptual situation in meditation,
It is an Insight practice.
A practice for clear seeing, through this kind of investigation.
There are or types of vipassana practices.
They involve a series of reflections.
Like the six element practice.
The elements of earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness.
When we investigate the perceptual situation, our method is not based on a series of reflections.
We are not using the rational mind.
We are trying to drop concepts.
Trying to stop conceptualisation.
Trying to overcome our compulsion for conceptualisation.
And I stead we try to enter directly into the experience of the six senses.
The eye and sight, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and taste, the skin and touch, the mind and mind objects.
What is the difference between thinking and investigating mind objects, without conceptualisation?
I’ll leave you to think about it.
So what are we actually trying to do?
It's very simple and direct.
We do this when we look at a flower, or look at a painting.
We look at it.
We give it our attention.
We take it in.
Maybe we notice how we feel,
We notice what feels arise when we are looking.
And without thinking.
Thinking means having thoughts like:
This is a flower.
It’s yellow.
It’s called such and such.
I like this flower.
I want this flower in my room.
How much does it cost.
We try to stop the compulsion to use our rational mind.
So let’s try this now. We did this exercise in the class.
Choose an object in your room.
Let’s meditate on it for a few minutes.
Take our object.
Look at it.
Pay close attention to it.
Don’t name and label it.
Drop our assumptions about it.
Just be aware of it.
Notice its shape.
Notice it’s smell.
Enter into direct sensory contact with it.
Notice it as if for the first time.
Seeing it clearly.
Notice what feelings arise in relation to it.
Like a child seeing this object for the first time.
Like a child with a sense of wonder for the world.
Seeing it every time like for the first time.
Meditation. Then Sharing our experience.
Part two:
We’ve already looked at the ideas of map and territory.
Map like for example a metro map.
Territory being the city where the metro is.
Map and territory are different.
But the map is still very useful.
But if the map isn’t useful, then it’s not useful.
So let’s investigate the perceptual situation again.
The perceptual situation of you having a conversation with someone.
Especially if it was an intersting conversation, a difficult conversation.
Let’s try to drop our interpretations.
We might think things like.
He insulted me.
He’s talking to me as if I am stupid.
He’s lying to me.
And simply become aware of what was actually said.
The words that were said, not how we felt about them.
Maybe become aware of the expression on his face.
Become aware of the intonation of his voice.
Try to become directly aware of our sensory experience during this conversation.
Our compulsion to conceptualisation here is the desire to interpret.
On the basis of this interpretation we can play a role.
A role like the victim or the victor.
We can give the other person a role to play too.
As well as having direct perceptual experience,
We can also bring our map of the conversation nearer to what really happened.
What really happened is reality.
So let’s take some time to remember a conversation we had.
We’ll do this while we sit in meditation.
Let’s pay attention to what they really said.
Attention to what we really said.
Why do you think they said and what did they actually say?
Pay attention and try to remember.
Make the map fit the territory more accurately.
Afterwards we can share what we noticed.
Meditation and reflection, then sharing.
Notes on the recent presentation by Suvannavira.
Part one:
I attended the sadhana convention at Adhisthana recently.
Lots of interesting talks by Prakasha, who has been a member of the Triratna Buddhist order for 50 years.
Various themes:
- Descent into hell and ascent into heaven in the spiritual life.
- Chakras and energy channels.
- Investigating the perceptual situation. which is our theme today.
We’ll see how the perceptual situation connects with the ideas of ‘map’ and ‘territory’.
So connection with our area of practice of speech.
IE the fourth precept, of voluntairily undertaking to avoid lying and to tell the truth.
We can investigate the perceptual situation in everyday life or in meditation.
Meditation practices are often divided into “Samatha” and “Vipassana” practices.
“Samatha” practices to develop calm or tranquility.
Practices like the “mindfulness of breathing” or the “development of loving kindness”.
“Vipassana” practices to develop Insight or clear vision.
We practice vipassana in the basis of Samatha.
Samatha is the foundation for vipassana.
When we investigate the perceptual situation in meditation,
It is an Insight practice.
A practice for clear seeing, through this kind of investigation.
There are or types of vipassana practices.
They involve a series of reflections.
Like the six element practice.
The elements of earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness.
When we investigate the perceptual situation, our method is not based on a series of reflections.
We are not using the rational mind.
We are trying to drop concepts.
Trying to stop conceptualisation.
Trying to overcome our compulsion for conceptualisation.
And I stead we try to enter directly into the experience of the six senses.
The eye and sight, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and taste, the skin and touch, the mind and mind objects.
What is the difference between thinking and investigating mind objects, without conceptualisation?
I’ll leave you to think about it.
So what are we actually trying to do?
It's very simple and direct.
We do this when we look at a flower, or look at a painting.
We look at it.
We give it our attention.
We take it in.
Maybe we notice how we feel,
We notice what feels arise when we are looking.
And without thinking.
Thinking means having thoughts like:
This is a flower.
It’s yellow.
It’s called such and such.
I like this flower.
I want this flower in my room.
How much does it cost.
We try to stop the compulsion to use our rational mind.
So let’s try this now. We did this exercise in the class.
Choose an object in your room.
Let’s meditate on it for a few minutes.
Take our object.
Look at it.
Pay close attention to it.
Don’t name and label it.
Drop our assumptions about it.
Just be aware of it.
Notice its shape.
Notice it’s smell.
Enter into direct sensory contact with it.
Notice it as if for the first time.
Seeing it clearly.
Notice what feelings arise in relation to it.
Like a child seeing this object for the first time.
Like a child with a sense of wonder for the world.
Seeing it every time like for the first time.
Meditation. Then Sharing our experience.
Part two:
We’ve already looked at the ideas of map and territory.
Map like for example a metro map.
Territory being the city where the metro is.
Map and territory are different.
But the map is still very useful.
But if the map isn’t useful, then it’s not useful.
So let’s investigate the perceptual situation again.
The perceptual situation of you having a conversation with someone.
Especially if it was an intersting conversation, a difficult conversation.
Let’s try to drop our interpretations.
We might think things like.
He insulted me.
He’s talking to me as if I am stupid.
He’s lying to me.
And simply become aware of what was actually said.
The words that were said, not how we felt about them.
Maybe become aware of the expression on his face.
Become aware of the intonation of his voice.
Try to become directly aware of our sensory experience during this conversation.
Our compulsion to conceptualisation here is the desire to interpret.
On the basis of this interpretation we can play a role.
A role like the victim or the victor.
We can give the other person a role to play too.
As well as having direct perceptual experience,
We can also bring our map of the conversation nearer to what really happened.
What really happened is reality.
So let’s take some time to remember a conversation we had.
We’ll do this while we sit in meditation.
Let’s pay attention to what they really said.
Attention to what we really said.
Why do you think they said and what did they actually say?
Pay attention and try to remember.
Make the map fit the territory more accurately.
Afterwards we can share what we noticed.
Meditation and reflection, then sharing.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment