"Avoid conceptualizations"

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
Post Reply
User avatar
138Velo
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:28 am

"Avoid conceptualizations"

Post by 138Velo »

Greetings everyone,

I'm a novice to this world, and I want to ask for some clarification on an item I read today in the book Open Heart, Clear Mind, by Thubten Chodron.

On page 30 (at least according to my Kindle), the author quotes the Buddha from the Dhammapada:
Attachment arises from (wrong) conceptions,
So know them as attachment's root.
Avoid conceptualizations
And then attachment will not arise.
I'm moving through this book slowly and carefully, doing my best to understand the concepts to the best of my ability as I go. I just want to make sure I understand the word "conceptualizations" in this context. I read it as "avoid wrong conceptions", which seems to be the common sense interpretation. The only reason I ask is that I'm a little confused as to why it doesn't say "wrong conceptions" in the first line and the 3rd line if they are the same, so perhaps my interpretation is incorrect. I have to assume the original language must use different words for this? Or is it just a different way of saying the same thing, and I'm getting into the weeds on a trifle.

Cheers, and many thanks for any wisdom you can share.

-Alan
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: "Avoid conceptualizations"

Post by muni »

Hi!
:namaste:
Some can be usefull.
But when it comes to samadhi, or for example practice by which practitioner and practice are all the same, then talking about is falling back in the power of the thoughts' stream ( conceptualization) and is then actually distraction.

Dualistic thoughts are creating concept ( wrong) after concept, so we make our life-movie and attachments arise. Even attachments to helpful written-spoken dharma, which is not the meaning of dharma.

Perhaps regarding practitioner-practice as the same and no separation: There was once a yogi sitting on a rock near the river. Two scholars saw him sitting and thought: ha, that one we are going to give a good lesson. They went to the yogi and started a debate about the nature of mind in front of him. The yogi just sat. After quiet a long time the yogi stood silently up, lifted his robe and showed his sore bum. The scholars understood.
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: "Avoid conceptualizations"

Post by muni »

Ha, ( I went to peep) she is talking about overestimating and false projections and so. That is as she says due to attachment to appearances. These can be subtle I guess and could be well maintained by conceptualization in thoughts.

Attachment is an unrealistic view and causes confusion she explains. Buddhism transforms our mind, liberates from any such confusion.

Interesting book. :namaste:
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Avoid conceptualizations"

Post by Astus »

138Velo wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:37 amquotes the Buddha from the Dhammapada
Actually, it is a quote from the Tibetan version of the Udānavarga (2.1, Sparham translation), that is not the same as the Dhammapada, nor does that stanza have any parallels in it.
I just want to make sure I understand the word "conceptualizations" in this context.
If you follow Chodron's explanation about the four perversions, that is fine.
The only reason I ask is that I'm a little confused as to why it doesn't say "wrong conceptions" in the first line and the 3rd line if they are the same, so perhaps my interpretation is incorrect. I have to assume the original language must use different words for this? Or is it just a different way of saying the same thing, and I'm getting into the weeds on a trifle.
Lines 1 and 3 use the same word. Sanskrit: saṃkalpa; Tibetan: kun rtog (which is the same as rnam rtog, i.e. vikalpana, according to Rockhill, in Udanavarga, p 9). The word 'wrong' is added by Sparham, that's why it's in brackets. In any case, it most likely refers to the basic mistakes (i.e. ignorance about the true characteristics of things) that can be overcome by wisdom.

"Completely overcome by [wrong] conception
People develop irresistible attachments
And see [objects] as clean; the objects of
Attachment increase and their bonds ensnare them.
Those who enjoy calming wrong conception,
Always mindful to meditate
On ugliness, loosen their bonds
By completely giving up their craving."

(Udanavarga 3.1-2, tr Sparham)
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: "Avoid conceptualizations"

Post by Grigoris »

138Velo wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:37 am Greetings everyone,

I'm a novice to this world, and I want to ask for some clarification on an item I read today in the book Open Heart, Clear Mind, by Thubten Chodron.

On page 30 (at least according to my Kindle), the author quotes the Buddha from the Dhammapada:
Attachment arises from (wrong) conceptions,
So know them as attachment's root.
Avoid conceptualizations
And then attachment will not arise.
I'm moving through this book slowly and carefully, doing my best to understand the concepts to the best of my ability as I go. I just want to make sure I understand the word "conceptualizations" in this context. I read it as "avoid wrong conceptions", which seems to be the common sense interpretation. The only reason I ask is that I'm a little confused as to why it doesn't say "wrong conceptions" in the first line and the 3rd line if they are the same, so perhaps my interpretation is incorrect. I have to assume the original language must use different words for this? Or is it just a different way of saying the same thing, and I'm getting into the weeds on a trifle.

Cheers, and many thanks for any wisdom you can share.

-Alan
It means to avoid being drawn into conceptualisation regarding the object of perception (which can include mental objects like thoughts and theories). Sometimes I believe that the word "obsession with" describes our action better than the word "attachment to", mainly because we can conceive of attachment to an object we consider positive, but not to a negative object; whereas one can be obsessed regarding a positive or negative object.

It can also mean to avoid a wrong interpretation of the object: ie believing an object ultimately 1)exists or 2)does not exist or 3)exists and does not exist or 4)neither exists nor does not exist. It means understanding that phenomena arise dependent on causes and condition but ultimately lack an inherent nature.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
SunWuKong
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:15 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia, USA
Contact:

Re: "Avoid conceptualizations"

Post by SunWuKong »

Grigoris wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:46 am
138Velo wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:37 am Greetings everyone,

I'm a novice to this world, and I want to ask for some clarification on an item I read today in the book Open Heart, Clear Mind, by Thubten Chodron.

On page 30 (at least according to my Kindle), the author quotes the Buddha from the Dhammapada:
Attachment arises from (wrong) conceptions,
So know them as attachment's root.
Avoid conceptualizations
And then attachment will not arise.
I'm moving through this book slowly and carefully, doing my best to understand the concepts to the best of my ability as I go. I just want to make sure I understand the word "conceptualizations" in this context. I read it as "avoid wrong conceptions", which seems to be the common sense interpretation. The only reason I ask is that I'm a little confused as to why it doesn't say "wrong conceptions" in the first line and the 3rd line if they are the same, so perhaps my interpretation is incorrect. I have to assume the original language must use different words for this? Or is it just a different way of saying the same thing, and I'm getting into the weeds on a trifle.

Cheers, and many thanks for any wisdom you can share.

-Alan
It means to avoid being drawn into conceptualisation regarding the object of perception (which can include mental objects like thoughts and theories). Sometimes I believe that the word "obsession with" describes our action better than the word "attachment to", mainly because we can conceive of attachment to an object we consider positive, but not to a negative object, whereas one can be obsessed regarding a positive, or negative, object.

It can also mean to avoid a wrong interpretation of the object: ie believing an object ultimately 1)exists or 2)does not exist or 3)exists and does not exist or 4)neither exists nor does not exist. It means understanding that phenomena arise dependent on causes and condition but ultimately lack a inherent nature.
Conceptualizations are also known as concepts. Academically incline people like inflated character use, and typographers' unions do not object, either.
"We are magical animals that roam" ~ Roam
User avatar
138Velo
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:28 am

Re: "Avoid conceptualizations"

Post by 138Velo »

Thank you so much everyone, I really appreciate your time and responses. :namaste:
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: "Avoid conceptualizations"

Post by Grigoris »

SunWuKong wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:00 pmConceptualizations are also known as concepts. Academically incline people like inflated character use, and typographers' unions do not object, either.
I disagree. There is a difference between conceptualisations and concepts. I believe that when one refers to concepts, generally one is talking about an object. A thing. A dharma. When one refers to conceptualisations, they are talking more about the dynamic process of conceptualising. A series of citta.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
SunWuKong
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:15 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia, USA
Contact:

Re: "Avoid conceptualizations"

Post by SunWuKong »

Grigoris wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:15 pm
SunWuKong wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:00 pmConceptualizations are also known as concepts. Academically incline people like inflated character use, and typographers' unions do not object, either.
I disagree. There is a difference between conceptualisations and concepts. I believe that when one refers to concepts, generally one is talking about an object. A thing. A dharma. When one refers to conceptualisations, they are talking more about the dynamic process of conceptualising. A series of citta.
Oh right.. DOH!!! I could conceptualize all day without ever getting to a single concept.
"We are magical animals that roam" ~ Roam
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: "Avoid conceptualizations"

Post by muni »

SunWuKong wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:18 am
Grigoris wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:15 pm
SunWuKong wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:00 pmConceptualizations are also known as concepts. Academically incline people like inflated character use, and typographers' unions do not object, either.
I disagree. The is a difference between conceptualisations and concepts. I believe that when one refers to concepts, generally one is talking about an object. A thing. A dharma. When one refers to conceptualisations, they are talking more about the dynamic process of conceptualising. A series of citta.
Oh right.. DOH!!! I could conceptualize all day without ever getting to a single concept.
That makes things clear. Thanks guys. Life seems to be a dwelling in the stream of thoughts, and then there happens a fixation, concept?
Fortunately there is help, to be aware of the thought stream, as well at the same time to avoid being lost into karmic actions by speech and by body. If not, attachment gets free run.

We (I) are used to be dragged in the thought stream and have no idea of it at all because we are so used to do so, it is our cosy safe dream-home. And so we chatter even to ourselves in our head while there is nobody to listen.
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”