top of page
Writer's pictureSabchu Rinpoché

Etymology Class #4: Conceptualization

The chosen Buddhist word of the Etymology Class #4 is, again, challenging and a very interesting word to translate into English. You will know why, after knowing the etymological meaning of the word.


And the word is: 
རྣམ་རྟོག་ (nam-tok) which is the shortened version of རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པ་ (nampar tokpa). Vikalpa (विकल्प) is the equivalent in Sanskrit.



It means a range of different things – all related to mind and its derivatives. Here are some of the English WORD translations, as well as the English MEANING translations of the said word, which are in a range of different contexts: 


  • conceptualization


  • conceptuality

  • 
concept

  • 
conception

  • 
discursive thought

  • thinking

  • conceptual thinking

  • thought


  • conceive

  • cognition

  • idea construction

  • perception of mind

  • 
reflective, secondary thought

  • 
interpretive thoughts


  • unreal conclusion

  • thought chains


  • conceptual process

  • 
mental superstition 



A surprising lot of meanings! A challenge of the translators... phew!



In order to understand the word and its applicability in numerous contexts, we have to look at a few different operational modalities of sentient beings’ minds, because that is the key associated point.

 The pertinent modality describes some interesting attributes. Please read and introspect slowly, patiently, as this is a bit philosophical. 

The mind (referring to the embodied mind) is operating in a particular framework:

A. The mind grasps itself as 'self'.


Although typically we can call it 'ego', but the word 'ego' could imply a limited intermittent bursts of self-centredness, while the description of the mind grasping itself as 'self' means that our minds’ status quo is that it is grasping itself as 'self' all the time. For example, do you think there was a concept of "I" before you even learned the meaning of the word 'I'?


The knowledge of the words, such as the word 'I' and their correlation to the phenomena (mind grasping itself as 'self') – are acquired afterwards, for sure.


Mommy loves you.

I love you.

Say, I love you.


Once upon a time, these were mere sounds. Before we acquired any language skills, did our mind grasp itself as 'self' or didn't it? Of course, yes! The mama bear you can watch in this video also has her 'self', though she does not say 'I'.

Buddhist teachers posit that this phenomenon of mind grasping itself as 'self' is the fundamental base of sentient beings’ minds. It does so very strongly, very faithfully, and unquestionably. In brief, this is the Buddhist description of 'self', very often translated in English as 'ego'.


In the frequently used sentence "I love you", this relates to the word 'I'. This is the first part that we need to know, but there is more...



B. Not only does the mind grasp itself as 'self', but by the virtue of doing so, a subsequent phenomenon emerges.


Upon coming into its perception, the mind perceives everything else and everyone else as 'the other'. This is the second part. It's a bit tricky. Please read and think about that sentence once again: 

Upon coming into its perception, the mind perceives everything else and everyone else as 'the other'. Let me attempt to help you sparse those important parts.



Coming into its perception


What this means is that when the mind perceives an object, such as the computer or mobile phone you are looking at right now, the object does not physically enter into the mind, or does it? No it does not. Buddhist teachers argue using the classic introspection: should that be true, you would physically burst into flame while thinking of fire. Think about that. When we see a giant mountain or big ocean, how do we see them? Let us take this further. After having seen the said mountain or the big ocean, close your eyes and bring that ‘picture’ back to your mental ‘screen'. When you had eyes open, nor when you had your eyes closed, neither did you explode into pieces nor were you swept away by water.



The inference here is this:

The mentioned ‘screen’ is what is called mental consciousness. For the sake of simplicity, consider this so-called mental consciousness somewhat different from the mind itself, which you may consider as the spectator of the screen. Got it? Next: What is on that screen? Well, everything else, except 'I'.


First test


For example, for 10 seconds, please think of the device you are reading this text on. Its shape, its color, its value, the smudges, etc.

 Did you do it? Please do it for 10 seconds. While you are thinking about the device, would you not agree that you were considering yourself as a separate entity than the device?

In any thought process, do you not feel that there is YOU who is thinking about the given topic? This intrinsic division of 'I' and what 'I' is doing or thinking is what is to be noted here.


Earlier I called it 'the other'. For example, among so many 'others', the display you are reading this text is one of them. This is related to the word you in the sentence "I love you". 

The word 'other', what is it the opposite of? Huh…this is coming full circle now. Let me reinstate the earlier sentence here: 

Not only does the mind grasp itself as 'self', but by the virtue of doing so, there is a subsequent phenomenon. Upon coming to its perception, the mind perceives everything else and everyone else as the other. 

Hence, the answer to the above question is: 'self'. 'Self', as opposed to 'the other'. 'The other,' as opposed to 'self'.



Second test


In your situation, as you read this, please try to name 10 'others' that come to your mind in the next 60 seconds. Let me help you with the first one: the screen that this text is on. If I hammer the screen into pieces, your 'self' is NOT broken into pieces, or is it? Thus, the screen is not your 'self'. Yes? Easy!


Name 9 other 'others'. I trust that you will do so. After you are done, continue reading.



In your list, preasumably, you might have some visible objects and some persons. Yes? Great!

But,

 why do you not have odors? You could say: the fragrance of a burning incense stick.


Why do you not have sounds? You could consider the background sound in your place.


And… no taste? How about your memory of the taste from yesterday’s dinner. That counts too.

Above all, 
why do you not have your own THOUGHTS in the list? (insert dramatic music). Yes! Thoughts count too, and that could be an uncharted territory, I think.


Recap


1. The mind grasps itself as 'self' (this is the 'ego', or the 'I', however you word it).


2. The 'other' (this is the 'you', or the whole perceived and experienced world encompassed in and as the six objects of sense faculties).


3. And the ‘screen’ on which all 'the others' appear.


Appear?! Huh! Yes, APPEAR.


This marks the full end of the circle in order to explain the word རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པ་. Back to etymology now:

རྣམ་པ་ means appearance.



The word appearance is often juxtaposed with the word essence. For example, what is the essence of Buddha as opposed to how Buddha can manifest or appear; what is the essence of Chenrezig as opposed to how one can visualize the appearance of Chenrezig; and/or we could also say the 'appearance of a food', the way it can taste to a consuming individual, juxtaposed with the available nutritional essence contained in the food. Got it?


The take-away meaning from the word appearance in this context is that the appearance of a given object, such as any given thought, is here: a) mental phenomenon; b) takes place within the framework described above; c) is a term referring to the way the mind bears a thought in the described modality.


རྟོག་པ་ means to bear in mind, or to conceptualize.


When we examine carefully the time of a thought taking place in one’s mind – a thought is not unitary, static, singular, with a clear description of beginning and end, nor does it bear any directional source of coming and going. Instead, what we can observe are beginningless, endless, ever-perpetuating, interwoven narratives, instigated by stimuli. One stimulus after another, the 'self' can go on conceptualizing a range of different ideas, all associated with the above described 'self' and the above mentioned 'other'.



And often the process of conceptualization is amplified when it is strongly charged with afflictions, such as desire, grasping, aversion, or anger, further causing the 'self' to be agitated, stressed, to say the least. རྣམ་རྟོག་ therefore is not only the basis for the emotional ‘world’, it is also the basis for practically implementing or following the given emotion, propelled by either hope or fear. This is causality, or karma. Some types of རྣམ་རྟོག་ come and go instantly, some can intermittently cause a normal, happy state, while others can bring sadness and melancholy. But in all the patterns, the characteristics of how they emerge and subside remain relatively unchanged throughout. The way the 'self' ‘handles’ all རྣམ་རྟོག་ remains relatively unchanged – different music but the same orchestra. And sure enough, the 'self' does love some music more than others, in the metaphorical sense, as we all know.


My friends, please take a moment here to connect these notes with the previous ones about modality. Follow the trail of breadcrumbs, if you will.


Following the figurative and descriptive explanation, the deduction you could make here is the following: To think means to grasp, or to bear in mind what appears on the ‘screen.’


But more importantly, Buddhist teachers add on to this definition. Super vital. They argue that there are systemic discrepancies, inconsistencies. When carefully examined, the 'self' does not grasp appropriately, correctly. There are ‘holes’ everywhere. Moreover, the bases – the VERY bases of grasping – are also false, not true as they seem. The sense of 'self' has no true basis and consequently the sense of the described 'other' also has no true basis.



Through the use of logic and reason, and also though the power of meditative absorption, all the teachers unanimously highlight the importance of this ‘system check', if you will. Nevertheless, undeniably, unarguably, despite the systemic falsities, all the teachers admit, and we all know, that this IS the modality of sentient beings' minds. This is who we are. This is how we are. Caused by this practical fact, Buddhist practitioners cultivate a type of love and compassion called meditation of love and compassion with phenomena as its objects.



Back to the word རྣམ་རྟོག་


The described operational modality of mind, despite all its systemic inconsistencies and falsities, does go on in its particular way, without end. We go on thinking this and that. For as long as we live, in each of all our lifetimes, this modality can and DOES go on incessantly.


The word རྣམ་རྟོག་ underscores this thinking mind, with all its defects of inappropriate apprehension, distorted apprehension, or misapprehension of the ‘objects’ appearing on mind’s ‘screen'. What is the basis of all mental afflictions? That basis is nothing but རྣམ་རྟོག་, which by its characteristic, is ཚུལ་མིན་ཡིད་བྱེད་ or distorted apprehension:


That which is impermanent is apprehended as permanent.

That which is fleeting and transient, is apprehended as static and unchanging.

That which is finite is apprehended as infinite.

That which is uncertain is apprehended as certain.

That which is certain is apprehended as uncertain.

Those that are interdependent of each other, are apprehended as independent of each other.

That which is beyond one and many, is apprehended as divisibly separate.

That which is beyond space and time, is apprehended as locally and temporally fixed.

That which is beyond any coming and going, is apprehend with distinct beginning and ending linearly.

That which is truly non-existent is apprehended as truly existent.

That which is false is apprehended as true.

That which is a real ally is apprehended as a foe.

That which is a cause of suffering is apprehended as a cause of happiness.

That which is a source of happiness is apprehended as an adversary to one’s happiness.

That which is a quality is apprehended as a fault.

That which is a fault is apprehended as a quality.

That which is self-destruction is apprehended as a real source of joy.

That which is for giving is apprehended as for taking.

That which is not to be abandoned is apprehended as to be abandoned.

That which is not to be adopted is apprehended as to be adopted.



Hence, the ever-continuing saṃsāra, going round and round. These are some of many inconsistencies that can be discovered through the lens of Buddhadharma and through personal meditative practices. Gampopa (in the introduction page of The Jewel Ornament of Liberation) in this regard, pens, and I paraphrase: There is no end in sight. Without intentional ‘troubleshooting’, if you will, there is no self-correction. To put it shortly in Dharma words: neither your saṃsāra can end by itself, nor mine.


Having said that, the knowledge of རྣམ་རྟོག་ can be a good step toward the direction of positive change. Please note what I mentioned earlier that it is one of the operational modalities of mind. The interesting fact is that this modality does not have to be the default modality. We can slowly move away from this modality and phase into another one. Good news! Most of you who are meditating are already on that journey. In this relatively new mode of operation, the same རྣམ་རྟོག་ is defined differently. Because the mind’s working-style is different in this operation, there is a dimensional shift, if you will (beyond the scope of this post).



Summary


Because it was incepted for the purpose of preserving Buddhadharma, the Tibetan language has always been associated with Buddhist concepts. Without the associated conceptual backdrop, the Buddhist words such as རྣམ་རྟོག་ can only be understood as thinking mind or discursive thought. However, with the proper context, the layered meanings can come to light.


May my 'namtok' (རྣམ་རྟོག་) dawn as wisdom. May your 'namtok' (རྣམ་རྟོག་) dawn as wisdom. May everyone’s 'namtok' (རྣམ་རྟོག་) dawn as wisdom. May we all come to realize that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are not two.

Bhavatu sarva maṇgalam!

Comments


bottom of page