Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think concepts isn't the problem... for practical purposes in life and for communication we are always employing concepts to get things done.
The problem is when we 'believe' in the concepts -- when we start to see things in terms of inherency and duality. Like what the article says:
The conceptual categories that conceptual cognition fabricates are cognitive representations snang-ba, mental appearances) not only of what things are (words, meanings, wholes, continuums, objects, kinds of things, and so on), but also of things truly existing in that way. Truly existing (bden-par grub-pa), here, means really existing in that way, independently of imputation.
Otherwise, if we don't believe in the concept, if we don't believe in the inherency, practical usage of concepts continue to arise but is seen to be just illusory empty-luminous thoughts arising, empty of any objective self-existence, and thus not held on to. Just like for practical purposes I must say that "I am [insert name], [insert gender], [insert my history]" but they are really just concepts, names and forms, nothing to do with my true nature... thoughts arise and the words are spoken but not 'believed'. Not 'believed' means, I do not take my thoughts to refer to a true independent entity, or a real self. They are just transient clouds floating in the blue sky, always changing form, nothing graspable, and does not in anyway obscure or hinder the sky-like mind.
Hence the goal here is not to get rid of all thoughts and all concepts (can't be done forcefully either -- they can only self-dissolve in its own accord through insight and non-clinging), the point is really to see that all concepts are just thoughts arising with no objective/external reality independent of imputation. This frees us from all grasping and prevents us from sinking into a 'spell-like state'.
Like what Byron Katie said here with an interview with Bill Harris:
BK: Yes, it was impossible to see anything the same
way because I didn’t know what anything was and
you know, I had no reference for anything and when I
opened my eyes, it was amazing. It was like something
else looking out of these holes and this apparent being
and I would maybe look out the window and my mind
would say, “Sky,” but I couldn’t velcro to it. I couldn’t
believe it. I wasn’t able to hold it. It may as well... It is
like someone looking at the sky and calling it a tree. It
was chaos and none of it real and I began to laugh as I
saw that the mind, the moment that mind hit my head,
a world, absolutely, was produced, but then people
would say, for example, they would say, “Katie, how
are you?” And I’d have to look around to see who they
were talking to and they taught me my name was Katie,
you know, Byron Kathleen Mitchel, now, that’s my
birth certificate, Byron Kathleen Reed and actually, my
family came to get me and they told me my husband
and children were coming and I had no idea that I was
even married or had children. Nothing, but my mind
was such a yes! It was just so in love with everything
that a man and three grown people, you know, came
to get me and that’s how I knew I had a home. They
told me they were taking me home and it was just, it
was marvelous! You know? And learning the name
of everything and referencing, you know, learning
references and it is not as thought I had amnesia,
you know, I can like, talking to you right now, Bill...
If someone said, “What is your name?” I would say,
“Katie.” And I would say, you know, inside of my head,
“Just don’t ask me if I believe it or not.” So, nothing
has changed from that first instant of this amazing,
unlimited, infinite being.
.
.
.
BK: So, if I believe something, I have to see it because
it’s impossible to see what we can’t believe. For
example, if I am a child and my parents continue to
tell me this is a tree, this is a tree, this is a tree,
that’s
a tree, this is a tree. It doesn’t make it a tree to me.
I’m not separate, words don’t have meaning. It means
nothing except to them, but it doesn’t affect me until
there is that moment that I attached, you know, I
attach like that word to reality, a false reality, and in
that moment, I am separate. There is the tree and me.
BH: Because, tree is just a noise that represents a tree,
but it isn’t the tree. It’s just a representation.
BK: I can’t see a tree until I believe it. We cannot see
what we don’t believe.
BH: Well, you know what is interesting, you know,
with a little tiny child, they will point at a bunch of
stuff on the wall, a bunch of just, a mess on the wall
and say, “What’s that mommy?” Or, “What’s that
daddy?” And it isn’t anything that an adult has a name
for. It is just a bunch of marks on the wall and it’s
a disconcerting moment for the adult because they
are looking at that and the child is trying to attach a
name to it and there is no name for it. I heard Alan
Watts talking about this once and I thought that was a
perceptive thing for him to have brought up that there
are many things in the world that have no name and a
child already at two-years-old or three-years-old has
bought into this idea that they have got to attach a
label to this and then start mistaking the labels for the
things themselves.
BK: Yeah, or we buy in that we have to name
everything for the children and of course, it does have a
name. It’s a mark on the wall. So, we have two names
there. We have mark and then wall and, you know,
names for things. So that’s separating out of the whole
and it’s how the mind, it is how the mind... It mirrors a
reality that is false.
BH: Right...
Yes, something like that..
Just a sharing...
The most important practice is to learn to drop and 'let go' correctly.
Don't analyse so much... these analysis are all concepts. Dive in without any care!
We will need to 'open up' into the spacious luminosity that have no conceptual thoughts. Here you may notice that you are no longer seeing through the 'physical eye vision'.
If got concept OK... no concept also Ok. Just don't use the will to modify.
I see... thanks :)
Originally posted by longchen:Yes, something like that..
Just a sharing...
The most important practice is to learn to drop and 'let go' correctly.
Don't analyse so much... these analysis are all concepts. Dive in without any care!
We will need to 'open up' into the spacious luminosity that have no conceptual thoughts. Here you may notice that you are no longer seeing through the 'physical eye vision'.
If got concept OK... no concept also Ok. Just don't use the will to modify.
Allow the muddy waters of mental activity to clear;
Refrain from both positive and negative projection -
leave appearances alone:
The phenomenal world, without addition or subtraction, is Mahamudra.
~ Tilopa
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Allow the muddy waters of mental activity to clear;
Refrain from both positive and negative projection -
leave appearances alone:
The phenomenal world, without addition or subtraction, is Mahamudra.~ Tilopa
Watch this:
Choegyal Namkhai Norbu - Dzogchen - Self-Liberation
All views are based on the belief of something as inherently existing, and necessarily lead to suffering because not in accord with reality.
~ source unknown
Thusness's comments: (this) is a good understanding of Emptiness. 'Views' are the result of seeing things as existing inherently.So is attachment.
Originally posted by Thusness:
The 'clear light' is the 'luminosity'. In actuality there is no 'Emptiness' to be cognized beyond concepts for 'Emptiness' is just a 'raft' that exist only in conceptuality. The purpose is to negate the dualistic and inherent views so that the true nature that is beyond the four extremes can be correctly intuit. When the mind is still deeply rooted in seeing things dualitically and inherently, it cannot know what is the true meaning of 'non-conceptuality', 'non-abiding''no-self' and so on. Therefore 'Emptiness nature' is taught but in essence it is pathless.
In actual practice there is no 'the pathless path' but when seen by a dualistic mind, there appears to be a 'truly existing pathless path' to be followed. This is similar to the senario when someone remark that 'everything changes' and we asked 'what about change?'. The dualistic and inherent mind is quick to objectify and is unable to 'understand' beyond its own dualistic/inherent framework. When a mind is deeply rooted in seeing things dualistically/inherently, whatever experiences is distorted due to story telling.
Whatever mental activity that is 'this' or 'that' is within the dualistic/inherent framework. Whatever arising phenomena be it thought, emotion, forms and so on are already the Luminosity itself when without the story telling. Everything 'already is' and is the One Reality but because of story there appears to be a 'separation' and when 'Emptiness' becomes a story, it fails to serve as the antedote for our dualistic/inherent views.
Thus only for the purpose of communication the above quote is written that way; there is only 'Emptiness' to be cognized by a dualistic/inherent mind, no 'Emptiness' to be cognized in true luminosity.
Just a sharing. :)
THE RAFT SIMILE BY BUDDHA:
"Bhikkkhus, this view, so clean and pure, if you covet, fondle, treasure and take pride in it do you know this Teaching comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up and not for the purpose of holding? No, venerable sir. Bhikkhus, this view of yours so clean and pure, do not covet, fondle, treasure and take pride in it. Do you know this Teaching comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up and not for the purpose of holding? Yes, venerable sir."
- Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta
-------------
"Moreover, these sentient beings must also have discarded all
arbitrary notions of a personal self, other personalities, living
beings, and a universal self. Otherwise their minds would
inevitably grasp after such relative conceptions. Furthermore,
these sentient beings must have already discarded all arbitrary
notions of the non-existence of a personal self, other
personalities, living beings, and a universal self. Otherwise,
their minds would still be grasping at such notions. Therefore
everyone who seeks total enlightenment should discard not only
conceptions of their own selfhood, other selves, living beings,
and a universal self, but they should also discard all notions of
the non-existence of such conceptions.
When the well-traveled one, in teaching, uses conceptions
and ideas, people should remember the unreality of all such
concepts and ideas. They should recall that the well-traveled
one, in teaching spiritual truths, always uses such notions in
the way that a raft is used to cross a river. The raft is of no
more use when the river has been crossed, and should be
discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of and about spiritual
things should be given us as one attains enlightenment. How much
more should one give up conceptions of non-existent things?"
~ Diamond Sutra
-------------
"Suppose that a man, in the course of
traveling along a path, were to come to a great expanse of water, with
the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free
from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this
shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great
expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further
shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a
bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather
grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to
make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in
dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?'
Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves,
having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety
on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his
hands & feet. Having crossed over to the further shore, he might
think, "How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence
on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have
crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having
hoisted it on my head or carrying on my back, go wherever I like?" What
do you think, monks: would the man, in doing that, be doing what should
be done with the raft?"
"No, lord."
"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done
with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over,
would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in
dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands &
feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I,
having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I
like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the
raft. Even so monks, I have taught you the Dhamma like a raft, for the
purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Knowing
the Dhamma to be like a raft, you should let go even of [skillful]
qualities, to say nothing of those that are not."
~ Alagaddupama Sutta