Developing a language of gnosis

[Michel]

Hello Jhananda. Good to see you back on the forum. Hope your book is coming along.

I'm studying "The Connected Discourses of the Aggregates" in the Samyutta Nikaya. Today I spent a considerable length of time trying to understand the two terms"consciousness" and "cognition." I found various contradictory definitions from psychology, philosophy, and various dictionaries.

I know that you say consciousness cannot not be the term for the 5th aggregate, since liberation is a state of "stillness of all the five aggregates", and therefore one could not be unconscious in the state of full liberation, since one is in a state of pure consciousness . You prefer to use the terms "cognition" and "volition" for the fifth aggregate. I like to express these two terms as "volitional thought formations." I hope I'm not confusing you. But what do you think?

So, Just to make things clear, in the context of the Five Aggregates how would you define "cognition" and "consciousness" so that we are on the same page?

[Jhanananda]

Hello Jhananda. Good to see you back on the forum. Hope your book is coming along.

Thank-you, slow, but sure, progress is being made in research and writing

I'm studying "The Connected Discourses of the Aggregates" in the Samyutta Nikaya. Today I spent a considerable length of time trying to understand the two terms"consciousness" and "cognition." I found various contradictory definitions from psychology, philosophy, and various dictionaries.

I know that you say consciousness cannot not be the term for the 5th aggregate, since liberation is a state of "stillness of all the five aggregates", and therefore one could not be unconscious in the state of full liberation, since one is in a state of pure consciousness . You prefer to use the terms "cognition" and "volition" for the fifth aggregate. I like to express these two terms as "volitional thought formations." I hope I'm not confusing you. But what do you think?

So, Just to make things clear, in the context of the Five Aggregates how would you define "cognition" and "consciousness" so that we are on the same page?

To understand the Buddha dhamma, the contemplative arts, philosophy and mysticism we will need to understand a number of terms, which have been misused for centuries, if not millennia. For instance, when Buddhist literature is translated into English, and the term 'samadhi' is commonly translated as 'concentration,' then we know for sure that few Buddhist priests know what samadhi is.

When western psychology and psychiatry dismiss the genuine religious experience as nothing more than "religious psychosis" (DMS IV), then we know that western psychology and psychiatry have no idea what so ever about the genuine religious experience.

When religious moments, such as the various "Charismatic" Pentecostal movements, freely use terms like: charism and Glossolalia, and yet their idea of a charismatic experience is going to an overly emotional sermon, and rolling in the isles, and barking like a dog, then we know that they have no idea what a charismatic experience is.

When I submitted a paper to the Conference on Consciousness Studies, I knew most of the founding members of that organization, which was founded at the University of Arizona, where I studied and did research for about 15 years. When I attended that conference I sat through as many lectures on the subject as I could.  I found at not time did any of the illustrious presenters had any idea what consciousness was.

So, we will need to understand a number of terms, which have been misused for centuries, if not millennia.  This problem has been in place from the beginning of my mission, so I have constructed a number of glossaries, so you might wish to start there, and we can discuss terms after you have investigated those glossaries.

A Glossary of Key Buddhist Terms and Concepts

Sanskrit-English Glossary of the Yoga-Sûtra and Pronunciation Guide

The Language of Gnosis

The Language of Gnosis and Ecstasy

A Contemplative's Pali-English, English-Pali Dictionary

[Michel]

Jhananda:

... so I have constructed a number of glossaries, so you might wish to start there, and we can discuss terms after you have investigated those glossaries.

A Glossary of Key Buddhist Terms and Concepts

Sanskrit-English Glossary of the Yoga-Sûtra and Pronunciation Guide

The Language of Gnosis

The Language of Gnosis and Ecstasy

A Contemplative's Pali-English, English-Pali Dictionary

Thank-you for your interesting reply. It's very interesting that "any of the illustrious presenters at the conference had any idea what consciousness was."

Anyways, I should have checked these glossaries before posting, they are the core references for the GWV. I apologise. So I've checked all the glossaries, and this is what I found on "cognition" and "consciousness":

From the GWV dictionary:

"consciousness: sati, incorrectly associated with viññána"

"cognition: viññána (s. khandha), citta (q.v.), mano (q v ) - Moment of °: citta-kkhana (q.v.). Contemplation of °: cittánupassaná: s. satipatthána - Corporeality produced by °: citta-ja-rúpa, s. samutthána - Abodes or supports of °: cf. viññánatthiti (q.v.) Functions of °: viññána-kicca (q.v.)."

"cognitive series: s. viññána-kicca."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From the Buddhist Glossary: I found cognition to be the term you use for "vinnana", the 5th aggregate. No reference was made to consciousness.

And also in the glossary, "cognition" is expressed as in "The Five Aggregates (khandas/skhandas) of "Cognition" that cause the arising and passing away of mental structures (pancha-upadana-skhanda)" as opposed to the more common "The Five Aggregates of Clinging".

Why do you term it is as "Aggregates of Cognition" as opposed to the more common "Aggregates of Clinging"?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From the Language of Gnosis and Ecstasy:

"cognition  n.

1. The mental process or faculty of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge. [Middle English cognicioun, from Latin cognitia, cognitian-, from cognitus, past participle of cognoscere, to learn : co-, intensive pref.; see CO- + gnoscere, to know—cognitional adj."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There's not much on the term "conciousness" in any of the glossaries, except that it is the same as "sati", which is defined by you as mindfulness, or awareness. "Cognition" is also expressed in terms of awareness in "The Language of Gnosis and Ecstasy" above. Why is this? Could you also provide a more elaborate definition of "conciousness"?

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you for your interesting reply. It's very interesting that "any of the illustrious presenters at the conference had any idea what consciousness was."

Anyways, I should have checked these glossaries before posting, they are the core references for the GWV. I apologise.

I am glad whenever I find someone willing to read my work deep enough to find a few flaws.

So I've checked all the glossaries, and this is what I found on "cognition" and "consciousness":

From the GWV dictionary:

"consciousness: sati, incorrectly associated with viññána"

This is a typo/copy-paste error that I will have to fix.  It should read:

"concentration : sati,

"cognition: viññána (s. khandha), citta (q.v.), mano (q v ) - Moment of °: citta-kkhana (q.v.). Contemplation of °: cittánupassaná: s. satipatthána - Corporeality produced by °: citta-ja-rúpa, s. samutthána - Abodes or supports of °: cf. viññánatthiti (q.v.) Functions of °: viññána-kicca (q.v.)."

"cognitive series: s. viññána-kicca."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From the Buddhist Glossary: I found cognition to be the term you use for "vinnana", the 5th aggregate. No reference was made to consciousness.

And also in the glossary, "cognition" is expressed as in "The Five Aggregates (khandas/skhandas) of "Cognition" that cause the arising and passing away of mental structures (pancha-upadana-skhanda)" as opposed to the more common "The Five Aggregates of Clinging".

Why do you term it is as "Aggregates of Cognition" as opposed to the more common "Aggregates of Clinging"?

If you spend some time with the suttas, meditating to depth in samadhi, and studying the Aggregates, then it might become clear to you, as it has to me that the 5 Aggregates are how we construct identity.  So, it is not just how we cling to the world, but how we construct our identity, which also gives us a road map back to how we release ourselves from this world, and our construct of identity.

From the Language of Gnosis and Ecstasy:

"cognition  n.

1. The mental process or faculty of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge. [Middle English cognicioun, from Latin cognitia, cognitian-, from cognitus, past participle of cognoscere, to learn : co-, intensive pref.; see CO- + gnoscere, to know—cognitional adj."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There's not much on the term "conciousness" in any of the glossaries, except that it is the same as "sati", which is defined by you as mindfulness, or awareness. "Cognition" is also expressed in terms of awareness in "The Language of Gnosis and Ecstasy" above. Why is this? Could you also provide a more elaborate definition of "conciousness"?

Well, it is all a work in progress and with little input, I have dropped it all.  So, good to have your input.  I agree consciousness need to be better defined.  I have split this thread, because we are really now discussing key terms, and not the Aggregates.

[Michel]

Quote from: Michel on December 30, 2013, 03:21:44 PM

From the Language of Gnosis and Ecstasy:

"cognition  n.

1. The mental process or faculty of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge. [Middle English cognicioun, from Latin cognitia, cognitian-, from cognitus, past participle of cognoscere, to learn : co-, intensive pref.; see CO- + gnoscere, to know—cognitional adj."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Michel: There's not much on the term "conciousness" in any of the glossaries, except that it is the same as "sati", which is defined by you as mindfulness, or awareness. "Cognition" is also expressed in terms of awareness in "The Language of Gnosis and Ecstasy" above. Why is this? Could you also provide a more elaborate definition of "conciousness"?

Jhananda: Well, it is all a work in progress and with little input, I have dropped it all.  So, good to have your input.  I agree consciousness need to be better defined.  I have split this thread, because we are really now discussing key terms, and not the Aggregates.

So let's define what consciousness means. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as simply being aware of one's surroundings. That's a nice simple definition. I use this definition. You do not use the term conciousness as the 5th Aggregate, as is more commonly used. Cognition is also defined in terms of awareness [see above in bold]. So we have a cotradiction, unless conciousness and cognition are similar in definition. 

So, what do you mean when you use the term conciousness? 

Do you still use the same definition for cognition as above? And do you still use it as the term to define the 5th Aggregate?

[Jhanananda]

Consciousness, altered states of consciousness and bare awareness

Thank-you Michel for expressing your interest in a deeper understanding of mysticism and Buddhist philosophy.  For 30 years I engaged in a rigorous, self-aware contemplative life that consistently produced the religious experience.  I also read the writing of the major mystics.

After the above 30 years, I spent 10 years taking each sutta and read them deeply, to see how they apply, not just applied to my life, but how they applied to my interior life as a contemplative and mystic.  After that 40 years of rigorous study and practice I feel that I have found a few significant errors in how all mainstream religions tend to misinterpret the life and teachings of their progenitor.

I have spent the last 13 years offering up my findings to my fellow Western Buddhists, contemplatives and mystics. My wish is that my life’s work serves a few of you as well as it has served me.
 
The fifth aggregate cognition, "viññana," is typically translated as "consciousness."  However, this must be nonsense, because if we were to accept that the Buddha said "viññana" means "consciousness," then it would imply that he found enlightenment to be an unconscious state, because enlightenment was described by him as free of the five aggregate of cognition. 

If you read any of the 4 published dictionaries, such as the "Buddhist Dictionary, Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines," by NYANATILOKA, you will find this error in translation.  This only proves that these dictionary editors were not contemplatives with insight and attainment, but mere armchair scholars, because to say enlightenment is an unconscious state is of course nonsense.

So, I agree, let us investigate the term 'conscious' as well as other terms to see if we can come up with a better interpretation of the dhamma in the English language.

[Michel]

So, I agree, let us investigate the term 'conscious' as well as other terms to see if we can come up with a better interpretation of the dhamma in the English language.

I wonder what Siddhartha thought conciousness was? How should we proceed in our investigation of the term 'conciousness'? Since the 2nd factor of the 7 factors of enlightenment is 'Investigation', I decided to try and understand what consciousness means in terms of my own experience. I looked at various objects around the room, and I noticed that I could look at objects without any thinking. For example, I'd look at a table without concepts about it, i.e. that the table is square, it's brown, etc. There was only visual awareness. I did not know that I was looking at a table, or any other object, as long as I wasn't thinking. When I began to think about what I was seeing, I would form concepts about the table. I noticed that emotions would accompany the thoughts, i.e. the shape of that table is ugly, so I'd have a slight aversion for it, wishing that it be a different shape to my liking. So, what is conciousness if it is 'awareness of one's surroundings, as it is defined by the Oxford dictionary? Perhaps consciousness is awareness of objects of the senses without thinking. Thoughts about sensory experiences are not capable of penetrating the absolute reality of the objects that the mind thinks about. Does this make any sense?

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you Michel for investigating the term 'consciousness' in your every day experience.  The problem that I have with dictionaries, is they simply record common use of a term.  What if the common use of a term is wrong, and has been wrong for 1000s of years?

So, the dictionary, and Consciousness Studies defines consciousness in terms of being aware of something external.  However, are we going to call a lucid dream an "unconscious" state?  The lucid dreamer is certainly conscious.  He or she is just not conscious of the external reality, but conscious of an internal reality, or another reality.  Same goes with the OOBE, and the 8 stages of the religious experience.

The term "altered states of consciousness" has been used for the above subjective experiences.  So, the phrase recognizes that they are states of consciousness.

There is also a term "bare awareness" that appears in some contemplative literature.  What is bare awareness?  Bare awareness is an altered state of consciousness that occurs during meditation where the subject is not aware of anything, but is nonetheless aware.

So, what I am arguing here is consciousness does not need an object, nor does it need the senses, nor the mental processes.  But, do the dictionaries, or professors of consciousness studies, recognize this?  No.

So, in conclusion, I believe the Pali/Sanskrit term that best fits this use of the English term 'consciousness' would be 'Budhi.'

[Michel]

I see you survived my pathetic attempts at defining my idea of 'consciousness'.

I'm very impressed with your idea of what consciousness means. You've articulated it so clearly. You've really knocked this one out of the park. It would have taken me many years to figure it out, if at all. I also like the idea that you have chosen the term 'budhi' for consciousness instead of 'viññana'. As I mature as a contemplative/mystic I will be able to understand more fully what consciousness is. But for now, I'm happy to have an an intellectual understanding of it.

I checked the GWV dictionary and elsewhere for the term 'budhi'. Elsewhere I could not find anything on 'budhi', but I did find references to 'bodhi'. These two terms are interchangeable, I believe.


GWV definition of 'bodhi':

bodhi (from verbal root budhi, to awaken, to understand): awakenment, enlightenment, supreme knowledge. "(Through Bodhi) one awakens from the

slumber or stupor (inflicted upon the mind) by the defilements (kilesa, q.v.) and comprehends the Four Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.)" (Com. to M.

10).

The enlightenment of a Buddha is called sammá-sambodhi (q.v.) 'perfect enlightenment'. The faith (saddhá, q.v.) of a lay follower of the Buddha is

described as "he believes in the enlightenment of the Perfect One" (saddahati Tathágatassa bodhim: M. 53, A. III, 2).

As components of the state of enlightenment and contributory factors to its achievement, are mentioned in the texts: the 7 factors of

enlightenment (bojjhanga (q.v.)= bodhi-anga) and the 37 'things pertaining to enlightenment' (bodhipakkhiya-dhammá, q.v.). In one of the later

books of the Sutta-Pitaka, the Buddhavamsa, 10 bodhipácana-dhammá are mentioned, i.e. qualities that lead to the ripening of perfect

enlightenment; these are the 10 perfections (páramí, q.v.).

There is a threefold classification of enlightenment: 1. that of a noble disciple (sávaka-bodhi, q.v.). i.e. of an Arahat, 2. of an Independently

Enlightened One (pacceka-bodhi, q.v.), and 3. of a Perfect Enlightened One (sammá-sambodhi). This 3-fold division, however, is of later origin,

and in this form it neither occurs in the canonical texts nor in the older Sutta commentaries. The closest approximation to it is found in a verse

sutta which is probably of a comparatively later period, the Treasure Store Sutta (Nidhikkanda Sutta) of the Khuddakapátha, where the following 3

terms are mentioned in stanza 15: sávaka-páramí, pacceka-bodhi, buddha-bhúmi (see Khp. Tr., pp. 247f.).

The commentaries (e.g. to M., Buddhavamsa, Cariyapitaka) generally give a 4-fold explanation of the word bodhi: 1. the tree of enlightenment, 2.

the holy path (ariya-magga), 3. Nibbána, 4 omniscience (of the Buddha: sabbaññutá-ñána). As to (2), the commentaries quote Cula-Nidesa where bodhi

is defined as the knowledge relating to the 4 paths (of Stream-entry, etc.; catúsu maggesu ñána).

Neither in the canonical texts nor in the old commentaries is it stated that a follower of the Buddha may choose between the three kinds of

enlightenment and aspire either to become a Buddha, a Pacceka-Buddha, or an Arahat-disciple. This conception of a choice between three aspirations

is, however, frequently found in present-day Theraváda countries, e.g. in Sri Lanka.

bodhipakkhiya-dhammá - bodhi: Awakening, enlightenment + Pakkhipati: (pa + khipa) throws in, puts in. + Khippaü: ind. quickly. + dhammá:

Philosophy: Swift Philosophies to Awakening, The 37 'things pertaining to enlightenment', or 'requisites of enlightenmen.t' They comprise the

entire doctrines of the Buddha. They are:

the 4 foundations of mindfulness (satipatthána, q.v.), (D 22, M 10, 118, 119)
 the 4 right efforts (s. padhána),
 the 4 roads to power (iddhi-páda, q.v.), (D 2, M 119)
 the 5 spiritual faculties (indriya; s. bala),
 the 5 spiritual powers (bala, q.v.),
 the 7 factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga, q.v.),
 the Noble 8-fold Path (s. magga).

Jhananda:

There is also a term "bare awareness" that appears in some contemplative literature.  What is bare awareness?  Bare awareness is an altered state of consciousness that occurs during meditation where the subject is not aware of anything, but is nonetheless aware.

This is interesting. Did you find that any of them used the term 'budhi' to refer to 'bare awareness'? What terms did they use?

Jhananda:

So, what I am arguing here is consciousness does not need an object, nor does it need the senses, nor the mental processes.  But, do the dictionaries, or professors of consciousness studies, recognize this?  No.

Have you ever discussed this with any of the so-called experts?

[Jhanananda]

I see you survived my pathetic attempts at defining my idea of 'consciousness'.

I think you did fine.

I'm very impressed with your idea of what consciousness means. You've articulated it so clearly. You've really knocked this one out of the park. It would have taken me many years to figure it out, if at all. I also like the idea that you have chosen the term 'budhi' for consciousness instead of 'viññana'. As I mature as a contemplative/mystic I will be able to understand more fully what consciousness is. But for now, I'm happy to have an an intellectual understanding of it.

I checked the GWV dictionary and elsewhere for the term 'budhi'. Elsewhere I could not find anything on 'budhi', but I did find references to 'bodhi'. These two terms are interchangeable, I believe.


GWV definition of 'bodhi':

bodhi (from verbal root budhi, to awaken, to understand): awakenment, enlightenment, supreme knowledge. "(Through Bodhi) one awakens from the

slumber or stupor (inflicted upon the mind) by the defilements (kilesa, q.v.) and comprehends the Four Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.)" (Com. to M.

10).

The enlightenment of a Buddha is called sammá-sambodhi (q.v.) 'perfect enlightenment'. The faith (saddhá, q.v.) of a lay follower of the Buddha is

described as "he believes in the enlightenment of the Perfect One" (saddahati Tathágatassa bodhim: M. 53, A. III, 2).

As components of the state of enlightenment and contributory factors to its achievement, are mentioned in the texts: the 7 factors of

enlightenment (bojjhanga (q.v.)= bodhi-anga) and the 37 'things pertaining to enlightenment' (bodhipakkhiya-dhammá, q.v.). In one of the later

books of the Sutta-Pitaka, the Buddhavamsa, 10 bodhipácana-dhammá are mentioned, i.e. qualities that lead to the ripening of perfect

enlightenment; these are the 10 perfections (páramí, q.v.).

There is a threefold classification of enlightenment: 1. that of a noble disciple (sávaka-bodhi, q.v.). i.e. of an Arahat, 2. of an Independently

Enlightened One (pacceka-bodhi, q.v.), and 3. of a Perfect Enlightened One (sammá-sambodhi). This 3-fold division, however, is of later origin,

and in this form it neither occurs in the canonical texts nor in the older Sutta commentaries. The closest approximation to it is found in a verse

sutta which is probably of a comparatively later period, the Treasure Store Sutta (Nidhikkanda Sutta) of the Khuddakapátha, where the following 3

terms are mentioned in stanza 15: sávaka-páramí, pacceka-bodhi, buddha-bhúmi (see Khp. Tr., pp. 247f.).

The commentaries (e.g. to M., Buddhavamsa, Cariyapitaka) generally give a 4-fold explanation of the word bodhi: 1. the tree of enlightenment, 2.

the holy path (ariya-magga), 3. Nibbána, 4 omniscience (of the Buddha: sabbaññutá-ñána). As to (2), the commentaries quote Cula-Nidesa where bodhi

is defined as the knowledge relating to the 4 paths (of Stream-entry, etc.; catúsu maggesu ñána).

Neither in the canonical texts nor in the old commentaries is it stated that a follower of the Buddha may choose between the three kinds of

enlightenment and aspire either to become a Buddha, a Pacceka-Buddha, or an Arahat-disciple. This conception of a choice between three aspirations

is, however, frequently found in present-day Theraváda countries, e.g. in Sri Lanka.

bodhipakkhiya-dhammá - bodhi: Awakening, enlightenment + Pakkhipati: (pa + khipa) throws in, puts in. + Khippaü: ind. quickly. + dhammá:

Philosophy: Swift Philosophies to Awakening, The 37 'things pertaining to enlightenment', or 'requisites of enlightenmen.t' They comprise the

entire doctrines of the Buddha. They are:

the 4 foundations of mindfulness (satipatthána, q.v.), (D 22, M 10, 118, 119)
 the 4 right efforts (s. padhána),
 the 4 roads to power (iddhi-páda, q.v.), (D 2, M 119)
 the 5 spiritual faculties (indriya; s. bala),
 the 5 spiritual powers (bala, q.v.),
 the 7 factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga, q.v.),
 the Noble 8-fold Path (s. magga).

It is good to find people who are willing to do their homework, because enlightenment is not for the lazy.

Jhananda:

There is also a term "bare awareness" that appears in some contemplative literature.  What is bare awareness?  Bare awareness is an altered state of consciousness that occurs during meditation where the subject is not aware of anything, but is nonetheless aware.

This is interesting. Did you find that any of them used the term 'budhi' to refer to 'bare awareness'? What terms did they use?

No. In fact what I found is most of the "highly respected" dhamma teachers never even read the suttas, let alone practiced meditation on a daily basis.  For instance, Alan Watts, was proud to say he had never even meditated.  And, he was a highly respected" dhamma teacher?!!!  It just shows how most people are complete idiots.

Jhananda:

So, what I am arguing here is consciousness does not need an object, nor does it need the senses, nor the mental processes.  But, do the dictionaries, or professors of consciousness studies, recognize this?  No.

Have you ever discussed this with any of the so-called experts?

I met with a number of so-called dharma/dhamma teachers over the decades.  I never found one that even seemed to meditate regularly; and surely none of them had attained even the 1st jhana.

[Michel]

Interesting term: moksha.

Moksha

 In Indian religions and Indian philosophy, moksha (Sanskrit: मोक्ष mokṣa), also called vimoksha, vimukti and mukti,[1] means emancipation, liberation or release.[2] In soteriological and eschatological sense, it connotes freedom from saṃsāra, the cycle of death and rebirth.[3] In epistemological and psychological sense, moksha connotes freedom, self-realization and self-knowledge.[4]

In Hindu traditions, moksha is a central concept[5] and included as one of the four aspects and goals of human life; the other three goals are dharma (virtuous, proper, moral life), artha (material prosperity, income security, means of life), and kama (pleasure, sensuality, emotional fulfillment).[6] Together, these four aims of life are called Puruṣārtha in Hinduism.[7]

The concept of moksha is found In Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism. In some schools of Indian religions, moksha is considered equivalent to and used interchangeably with other terms such as vimoksha, vimukti, kaivalya, apavarga, mukti, nihsreyasa and nirvana.[8] However, terms such as moksha and nirvana differ and mean different states between various schools of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.[9] The term nirvana is more common in Buddhism,[10] while moksha is more prevalent in Hinduism.[11]

[Jhanon]

Yes, it is. I like it's sound, but I've never used it in the past because it feels like it has too much popular burden of misconception and assumptions--like how the term "God" in America is often thought of as a separate male deity (which is of course not accurate in my experience.)

Was this thread "Developing a Language of Gnosis" 1) created with the intent to transfer existing religious terms and frameworks, or 2) for developing a culturally unburdened language for gnosis attained through direct experience and observation.

An example of 1) would be the discussion above about the 5 aggregates and cognition. An example of 2) would be like the term "non-physical senses/sensations" that I use often, and find more appropriate and effective with the western audience than the term "charism."

I think the root of my question is wondering if this thread is open to suggesting more of 2), or if I should create a separate thread? I have begun a sort of 21st Century American dictionary/thesaurus of gnosis. I've found, in teaching 20-something's, numerous non-religious terms to give the most clarity and efficacy out of all existing terms. But I haven't posted it yet, because I seem to feel some aversion on the forum to my using fresh terms.

[Michel]

Was this thread "Developing a Language of Gnosis" 1) created with the intent to transfer existing religious terms and frameworks, or 2) for developing a culturally unburdened language for gnosis attained through direct experience and observation.

An example of 1) would be the discussion above about the 5 aggregates and cognition. An example of 2) would be like the term "non-physical senses/sensations" that I use often, and find more appropriate and effective with the western audience than the term "charism."

Hi Jhanon. I'd say it's for both.

I think the root of my question is wondering if this thread is open to suggesting more of 2), or if I should create a separate thread? I have begun a sort of 21st Century American dictionary/thesaurus of gnosis. I've found, in teaching 20-something's, numerous non-religious terms to give the most clarity and efficacy out of all existing terms. But I haven't posted it yet, because I seem to feel some aversion on the forum to my using fresh terms.

This thread is a good place to make your dictionary/thesaurus. I look forward to your posts on this subject.

[Jhanon]

Okey dokey But, I may not be as thorough as you, Michel. Fair warning Whereas you are a sniper, gathering tons of information about the target and environment before engaging with great accuracy and efficacy--I appear to be more of a buckshot. LOL. Hitting various connected targets, sometimes with very little impact.

[Cal]

Okey dokey But, I may not be as thorough as you, Michel. Fair warning Whereas you are a sniper, gathering tons of information about the target and environment before engaging with great accuracy and efficacy--I appear to be more of a buckshot. LOL. Hitting various connected targets, sometimes with very little impact.

Those analogies