1

I read the following on the internet:

One perceives 'the world' through the senses - however the senses themselves are in the world (lokasmiṃ). That does not imply the world is a state of mind, but that the mind is in the world.

Also:

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble one. (Yena kho, āvuso, lokasmiṃ lokasaññī hoti lokamānī) And through what in the world do you perceive the world and conceive the world? Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. - SN 35.116

Can "the world" only be "perceiving the world" (lokasaññī) without "conceiving the world" (lokamānī)?

3
  • It is unclear to me how you derive the question from the text and i vote to close. – Buddhism Feb 6 at 17:12
  • It says; that through which you perceive & conceive the world is called "a world". It is a definitive statement of fact. Why on earth would you ask whether that through which you perceive & conceive the world can only be "perceiving the world" (lokasaññī) without "conceiving the world" (lokamānī). It is like asking 'if x = yz; can x be y?' It is not a proper question and is absurd. – Buddhism Feb 6 at 17:20
  • Also why are you littering the site by creating useless tags? – Buddhism Feb 6 at 22:31
1

It depends on the context.

This sutta has a play on both meanings of loka - the objectively real world and the inner world of mental formations in this statement:

Mendicants, I say it’s not possible to know or see or reach the end of the world by traveling. But I also say there’s no making an end of suffering without reaching the end of the world.

This second meaning is explained in this statement (which also has both meanings of the word):

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble one.

The "world" in the training of the Noble Ones, refers to the world of mental formations through which we perceive (based on what is sensed of) the objectively real world and conceive the mental model of the world, which is the result of concept proliferation/ reification/ objectification-classification or papanca.

This is also found in the Rohitassa Sutta:

The end of the world can never
be reached by traveling.
But without reaching the end of the world,
there’s no release from suffering.

So a clever person, understanding the world,
has completed the spiritual journey, and gone to the end of the world.
A peaceful one, knowing the end of the world,
does not hope for this world or the next.”

So, the end of the world is the end of papanca (reification, objectification-classification, concept proliferation).

Piya Tan's commentary on the Lokantagamana Sutta:

2.1 In the Lok’anta Gamana Sutta,the Buddha, in simple words with profound senses, explains what it really means to “save the world.” We need to first understand what “world” really means. In the Sabba Sutta (S 35.23), the Buddha declares that all that there is are our 6 sense-faculties and their 6 respective sense-objects: these are the “all” (sabba). This is the world, the universe, we have created for ourselves. Nothing is meaningful for us beyond this.

2.2 The Buddha has never exhorted us to “save the world,” as this ultimately refers to all our senses, from which we liberate ourself. Even when taunted by the wanderer Uttiya, who asks, with all the Buddha’s attainments and teachings, “Is the whole world liberated by this, or only half of it, or a third of it?” The Buddha remains silent, because the question is wrongly put.

2.3 In an important sense, we can say that the Buddha’s teaching is about “saving ourself” from the world. The world is what we make of it: we create our own world. Hence, it is within our power to change our “world,” that is our own self. This is the spirit of “renouncing the world,” of letting go of the world so that we are free of the falseness and unwholesomeness we have created for ourself. The save the world, then, we need to renounce it.

2.4 In the Lok’anta Gamana Sutta 1 (S 35.116), the Buddha declares what kind of “world” that we can really save or liberate. First, the Buddha shows us what kind of world needs“saving”: Bhikshus, the end of the world cannot be known, seen or reached by going, I say. Yet, bhikshus, I also say that without reaching the end of the world there is no making an end to suffering.8(S 35.116,2), SD 7.4 The first mention of “the world” refers to the physical universe, which is with neither beginning nor ending in terms of time and space (okāsa,loka). It also refers to the world of beings (satta,loka), simply put, the cycle of births and deaths (saṁsāra) itself, which is external to us, so to speak. However, within us are the world of formations (saṅkhārā,loka), the self-created and self-centred “world”—this is our real prison of craving and ignorance, what we need to awaken from and so be liberated.

2.5 The Lok’anta Gamana Sutta further records the Buddha as declaring, “That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called ‘the world’ in the noble one’s discipline.”11(S 35.116,22). This refers to the workings of the 6 sense-bases. Then, the Buddha famously declares in the Rohitassa Sutta (S 2.26):

In this very fathom-long body, endowed with perception and mind, I declare the world, the arising of the world, the ending of the world, and the way leading to the ending of the world.”12(S 2.26,9), SD 7.1

0
-1

Perception and conception are conjoined, not disjoined, it is not possible having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them because what one conceives that one perceives and vice versa.

In terms of DO the word for conception is sankhara because what one conceives that one fabricates and sankhara refers to the six classes of intention.

"And what are fabrications? These six classes of intention — intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications.

As to;

That does not imply the world is a state of mind, but that the mind is in the world.

It's not a state of mind and yes mind is in the world. In the sutta mind is spoken of as a world in a definitive sense. It can be called 'a door to the world in the world'.

Namarupa depends on consciousness and consciousness depends on namarupa, a world depends on it's conception & perception and it's conception & perception depends on a world where it's conception & perception is thought to occur.

Mind is also called intellect or consciousness and is implicated in all contact which is thought of as a requisite of that which is spoken of as six classes of perception.

As contact is delineated at any of the five sense bases it is to be thought of as associated with contact at mind base exactly because that which is called manocittavinnanna is implicated in all contact.

Ie a meeting of the three; Cakkuvinnanadhatu + Cakkurupadhatu + Cakkudhatu; constitute an instance of cakkupassam

  1. Element of eye-consciousness
  2. Element which is the form visible by the eye
  3. Element which is the Eye

Meeting of the three is thought of as an instance of eye-contact and a requisite condition for 'seeing' which refers to classes of perception conceived based on the eye element.

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." -mn43

The aggregate of form has no object. Four aggregates have objects. [...] Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said to be, conjoined with consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. Three aggregates are generated by consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not generated by consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is generated by consciousness; sometimes is not generated by consciousness. https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila

3
  • a reference is required to substantiate the view that Perception and conception are conjoined, not disjoined, – Dhammadhatu Feb 6 at 21:17
  • You are the one who disagrees and makes the extraordinary assumption in that what is proclaimed to do both can do one and not the other, you are the one making the proposition and you are the one who has to provide evidence. This stuff is easily inferable and it's obvious that what you perceive that is generated and what generated is perceived, if it wasn't perceived the how would one assert it's formation. Synonyms for conception are creation, formation and you foolishy assert that there can be perception without any origin or synthesis... – Buddhism Feb 6 at 22:22
  • The Sutta do not contain all explicit answers to all your questions because the Sutta are finite and stupidity is obviously limitless. You can't expect the Sutta to have every possible statement in it and not having to rely on inference if you are asking questions which nobody in the Sutta asked. – Buddhism Feb 6 at 22:25
-1

MN 43 says feeling and perception are cojoined (cannot arise without each other).

Iti 44 says Arahants have feelings therefore, by default, also perceptions (as affirmed by SN 22.1; SN 22.48; SN 22.85; etc).

MN 1 says an Arahant perceives (fully comprehends) but does not conceive (mannati).

SN 12.44 says an Arahant continues to perceive via the senses but has reached the "end of the world" by ending craving (and ending conceptions, such as attachment, becoming birth & death).

Therefore, on the supramundane level (rather than in terms of conventional speech), it appears "the world" is something "conceived" rather than merely perceived.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.