Buddhism Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people practicing or interested in Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Conditioned reality, the psycho-physical interdependence, only exist because we experience it. This is how I interpreted Yuttadhammo's videos on Ultimate Reality. Is this a correct interpretation and if so, how can I apply this to my meditation practice?
Metta!
Ultimatly things exist as raw experience moving through the sense doors.
Bhante Yuttadhammo talked a lot over many videos about ultimate reality and other useful teachings from many angles so beginners and maybe intermediate level students could understand. I personally had to listen over and over and over and over again while practicing the meditation over and over and over again.
How do you apply this to meditation practice?
You purposely pay attention to whatever is in awareness coming through the sense doors moment by moment. The smallest mind moment may be something like one thousandth of a second of attention and in that moment there is just one atomic particle of reality to experience that is just what it is or ultimate reality. There are no consepts or conditions at this level. Concepts and conditions would need the mind to take another moment or more to gather a combination of momentary experiences, memories and other mental functions to form a consept or condition in the mind. Yeah, consepts would need some memories of previous moments that don't actually exist anymore, this may give you insight as to why consepts don't exist like we feel they exist.
As i understand the expression used by Ven Yuttadhamma means that the six or one of the six sensory expressions are 'ultimate reality' and however these get objectified or 'labeled/conceptualized' by intellect is 'conceptual'.
I don't know if Ven Sir would approve of the meaning thus drawn out to be agreeable but think that as i explained it, it can be quite misleading.
The problem one is bound to run into is dealing with phenomena such as 'contact'. Is that also conceptual? if one answes that it is conceptual then one will have to say that sensory expression itself is conceptual and if one says that contact is ultimate reality one will have to admit that there is no basis for this statement because contact is not a sensory expression and must therefore be excluded per definition.
If concept is per definition going to be that which is mind made then 'manopubbangama' will make everything included.
It isn't totally useless because there are demonstrable classes of abstraction and understanding how abstraction works is very useful but this system of language is mostly used by people studying general semantics. Buddha did not use it for a reason.
...the psycho-physical interdependence, ONLY EXIST because we experience it.
Nama-rupa is experienced due to consciousness (SN 12.10; SN 12.65; SN 12.67). However, nama-rupa can exist when we do not experience it. For example, I do not experience the nama-rupa (minds & bodies) in Alaska or Mongolia however they obviously exist outside of my experience.
Conditioned reality... ONLY EXIST because we experience it.
I have not read this in the Pali suttas. In fact, suttas such as AN 3.136 & SN 12.20 refute this Creationalist belief. I only read this is what Brahma believes, as follows:
The Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.'
DN 11
How can I apply this to my meditation practice?
What is written in the question is unrelated to meditation practise. Meditation is about developing calmness, peace, good-will, compassion and discerning the causes & cessation of suffering, impermanence & not-self. Meditation is not about believing in Brahma or God that is Ultimate Reality.
