General Philosophy

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4418
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

General Philosophy

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:35 am

Heraclitus said

"The way up is the way down"

Via my understanding, Heraclitus meant that X appears as F to A, and X appears as -F to B


Therefore X is both F and -F


Yet from Sextus, since X appears as F to A and -F to B, we withhold assent to if X is

F

or -F

or both F and -F

So Is X nature F, -F or both not F and -F

Or do we withhold judgement?


For example, Vodka tastes pleasant to some, yet vile to others.

Is Vodka both pleasant tasting, or vile, or both in its nature?

Or is the nature of Vodka in of itself, not known?
Pure awareness is pure knowledge


User avatar
Paul Davy
Posts: 15997
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Postby Paul Davy » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:15 am

Greetings,

clw_uk wrote:So Is X nature F, -F or both not F and -F

Or do we withhold judgement?

The only thing X is "by nature", is subjective.

If you try to make it objective you commit the referrential fallacy (like that committed by the abhidhammikas)

Metta,
Retro. :)
“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

What is the final conviction that comes when radical attention is razor-edge sharp? That the object of the mind is mind-made (manomaya). (Ven. Ñāṇananda)

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." (Thomas Sowell)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4418
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: General Philosophy

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:21 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

clw_uk wrote:So Is X nature F, -F or both not F and -F

Or do we withhold judgement?

The only thing X is "by nature", is subjective.

If you try to make it objective you commit the referrential fallacy (like that committed by the abhidhammikas)

Metta,
Retro. :)



I agree that if we say that X is by nature F, or -F or both, then we objectify. Yet to me I do know know if X is F, -F or both.


So do we withhold judgement, or side with Heraclitus and say it is both?
Pure awareness is pure knowledge


User avatar
Paul Davy
Posts: 15997
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Postby Paul Davy » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:23 am

Greetings,

clw_uk wrote:I agree that if we say that X is by nature F, or -F or both, then we objectify. Yet to me I do know know if X is F, -F or both.

So do we withhold judgement, or side with Heraclitus and say it is both?

I suggest we side with Buddha and acknowledge F as a sankhara, formed by avijja.

Metta,
Retro. :)
“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

What is the final conviction that comes when radical attention is razor-edge sharp? That the object of the mind is mind-made (manomaya). (Ven. Ñāṇananda)

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." (Thomas Sowell)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4418
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: General Philosophy

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:24 am

We could expand this into Buddhadhamma


Craving appears as dukkha to me, yet as Sukha to B

Is craving dukkha, or sukha or is it both?

or do we withhold judgement?
Pure awareness is pure knowledge


User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4418
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: General Philosophy

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:25 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

clw_uk wrote:I agree that if we say that X is by nature F, or -F or both, then we objectify. Yet to me I do know know if X is F, -F or both.

So do we withhold judgement, or side with Heraclitus and say it is both?

I suggest we side with Buddha and acknowledge F as a sankhara, formed by avijja.

Metta,
Retro. :)



Is "round" sankhara?
Pure awareness is pure knowledge


User avatar
Paul Davy
Posts: 15997
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Postby Paul Davy » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:32 am

Greetings,

clw_uk wrote:Craving appears as dukkha to me, yet as Sukha to B

Is craving dukkha, or sukha or is it both?

or do we withhold judgement?

The fact it's viewed differently is testimony to its fabricated (and thus, subject-ive) nature.

clw_uk wrote:Is "round" sankhara?

Yes.

I realise this might be a boring way to look at it in terms of "philosophy", but I believe it is true in relation to the Dhamma. Thus, it is both true and potentially useful.

Metta,
Retro. :)
“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

What is the final conviction that comes when radical attention is razor-edge sharp? That the object of the mind is mind-made (manomaya). (Ven. Ñāṇananda)

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." (Thomas Sowell)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4418
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: General Philosophy

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:36 am

The fact it's viewed differently is testimony to its fabricated (and thus, subject-ive) nature.


So is it Dukkha or sukha in its nature, or is it dukkha simply because we see it as dukkha and form an opinion of it (or form a preconceived notion of it as being dukkha)?

clw_uk wrote:
Is "round" sankhara?

Yes.

I realise this might be a boring way to look at it in terms of "philosophy", but I believe it is true in relation to the Dhamma. Thus, it is both true and potentially useful.



In which case we cant tell if a ball is round in its nature, its an appearance, and the nature of the ball is not currently known? Would you agree?

How do you define "truth" and your "belief"?
Pure awareness is pure knowledge


User avatar
Paul Davy
Posts: 15997
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Postby Paul Davy » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:44 am

Greetings,

clw_uk wrote:But is it Dukkha or Sukha, is the fabricated dukkha or sukha?

Depends on the qualitative nature of how the present moment experience is fabricated (which is derivable from the success or otherwise of the application of Right Effort in the present moment) and which definition of dukkha one is applying. There's an argument between two monks on whether all sankharas are dukkha, and he says that they're both right, they're just looking at it from different perspectives (apologies I cannot think of the source of this sutta).

clw_uk wrote:You havent answered the question

Yeah I have. :D

clw_uk wrote:In which case we dont know if a ball is round, its an illusion and the nature of the ball is not currently known? Would you agree?

Sabba Sutta wrote:"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."


clw_uk wrote:How do you define "truth" and your "belief"?

As sankharas, hence the Noble Eightfold Path being fabricated, as per the Culavedalla Sutta.

Metta,
Retro. :)
“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

What is the final conviction that comes when radical attention is razor-edge sharp? That the object of the mind is mind-made (manomaya). (Ven. Ñāṇananda)

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." (Thomas Sowell)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4418
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: General Philosophy

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:54 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

clw_uk wrote:But is it Dukkha or Sukha, is the fabricated dukkha or sukha?

Depends on the qualitative nature of how the present moment experience is fabricated (which is derivable from the success or otherwise of the application of Right Effort in the present moment) and which definition of dukkha one is applying. There's an argument between two monks on whether all sankharas are dukkha, and he says that they're both right, they're just looking at it from different perspectives (apologies I cannot think of the source of this sutta).

clw_uk wrote:You havent answered the question

Yeah I have. :D

clw_uk wrote:In which case we dont know if a ball is round, its an illusion and the nature of the ball is not currently known? Would you agree?

Sabba Sutta wrote:"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."


clw_uk wrote:How do you define "truth" and your "belief"?

As sankharas, hence the Noble Eightfold Path being fabricated, as per the Culavedalla Sutta.

Metta,
Retro. :)



Yet all that is sankhara?
Pure awareness is pure knowledge


User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4418
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: General Philosophy

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:59 am

Depends on the qualitative nature of how the present moment experience is fabricated (which is derivable from the success or otherwise of the application of Right Effort in the present moment) and which definition of dukkha one is applying. There's an argument between two monks on whether all sankharas are dukkha, and he says that they're both right, they're just looking at it from different perspectives (apologies I cannot think of the source of this sutta).



So are all sankhara dukkha or not dukkhka?


If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
Pure awareness is pure knowledge


User avatar
Paul Davy
Posts: 15997
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Postby Paul Davy » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:01 am

Greetings,

Yet all that is sankhara?

Yes.

So are all sankhara dukkha or not dukkhka?

If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?

I'll see if I can find the sutta I alluded to earlier.

Metta,
Retro. :)
“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

What is the final conviction that comes when radical attention is razor-edge sharp? That the object of the mind is mind-made (manomaya). (Ven. Ñāṇananda)

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." (Thomas Sowell)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4418
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: General Philosophy

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:04 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Yet all that is sankhara?

Yes.

So are all sankhara dukkha or not dukkhka?

If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?

I'll see if I can find the sutta I alluded to earlier.

Metta,
Retro. :)



Thanks :)
Pure awareness is pure knowledge


User avatar
Paul Davy
Posts: 15997
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Postby Paul Davy » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:17 am

Greetings Craig,

I couldn't find the sutta in question, though in my search for it I came across this old topic which is of relevance...

SN 45.165: Dukkhata Sutta — Suffering
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13459

In short though.... given that dukkha has multiple and diverse meanings, it is problematic to set it up in direct opposition to sukha.

Metta,
Retro. :)
“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

What is the final conviction that comes when radical attention is razor-edge sharp? That the object of the mind is mind-made (manomaya). (Ven. Ñāṇananda)

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." (Thomas Sowell)

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 4418
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: General Philosophy

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:26 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Craig,

I couldn't find the sutta in question, though in my search for it I came across this old topic which is of relevance...

SN 45.165: Dukkhata Sutta — Suffering
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13459

In short though.... given that dukkha has multiple and diverse meanings, it is problematic to set it up in direct opposition to sukha.

Metta,
Retro. :)


Thanks :)

However, ignoring Sukha, is Dukkha always Dukkha to everyone? Or is it only Dukkha to me (and others, if they exists, who experience it)?
Pure awareness is pure knowledge


chownah
Posts: 3710
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: General Philosophy

Postby chownah » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:15 am

clw_uk wrote:

In which case we cant tell if a ball is round in its nature, its an appearance, and the nature of the ball is not currently known? Would you agree?

How do you define "truth" and your "belief"?

Ball has no self so it has no nature.
Round has no self so it has no nature.
Appearance has no self so it has no nature.

Parsing up experience brings about the illusion of a ball, of round, of appearance.

Sorry if I'm disturbing the flow of the conversation and am missing the point.
chownah

chownah
Posts: 3710
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: General Philosophy

Postby chownah » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:21 am

clw_uk wrote:
Depends on the qualitative nature of how the present moment experience is fabricated (which is derivable from the success or otherwise of the application of Right Effort in the present moment) and which definition of dukkha one is applying. There's an argument between two monks on whether all sankharas are dukkha, and he says that they're both right, they're just looking at it from different perspectives (apologies I cannot think of the source of this sutta).



So are all sankhara dukkha or not dukkhka?


If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?

sukha-saññā, -citta, -diṭṭhi: 'the perception (consciousness or view) of happiness' in what is actually suffering (dukkhe sukha-saññā), i.e. any form of existence, it is one of the perversions (vipallāsa, q.v.).
From nayanatiloka's dictionary
chownah

User avatar
Paul Davy
Posts: 15997
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Postby Paul Davy » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:28 am

Greetings,

clw_uk wrote:However, ignoring Sukha, is Dukkha always Dukkha to everyone? Or is it only Dukkha to me (and others, if they exists, who experience it)?

Well, first of all, I'm inclined to contain this exploration to loka/sabba. Thus, by doing so you remove the question of whether Person A experiences X in the same way as Person B, because you rule out problems associated with inferring the objective inherent existence of X.

Yet, even when limiting the inquiry to the experiential realm of personal experience, the broad definition of dukkha remains problematic. For example, an arahant may experience dukkha-vedanā (unpleasant sensation) in terms of physical sensation, but they would not experience dukkha, in the sense of suffering and unsatisfactoriness.

That aside, keeping in mind what was said earlier in the Sabba Sutta, I would not bother to ask "is it only Dukkha to me?" as it would be more apt to ask "is it dukkha to me?"... or even better, "is it dukkha?"

Metta,
Retro. :)
“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

What is the final conviction that comes when radical attention is razor-edge sharp? That the object of the mind is mind-made (manomaya). (Ven. Ñāṇananda)

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." (Thomas Sowell)

SarathW
Posts: 5407
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: General Philosophy

Postby SarathW » Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:20 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

clw_uk wrote:So Is X nature F, -F or both not F and -F

Or do we withhold judgement?

The only thing X is "by nature", is subjective.

If you try to make it objective you commit the referrential fallacy (like that committed by the abhidhammikas)

Metta,
Retro. :)


Hi Retro
Sorry to go off topic.
I do not think Abhidhamma is referential fallacy.
ie:
Reference ... Fallacies are defined as mistakes in belief based on an unsound argument.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
:)
:focus:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
Paul Davy
Posts: 15997
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: General Philosophy

Postby Paul Davy » Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:40 am

Greetings Sarath,

I was using this definition...

Referential fallacy: assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them. ( Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies )

... especially the bolded sections, in the context of the four paramattha dhammas.

Metta,
Retro. :)
“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

What is the final conviction that comes when radical attention is razor-edge sharp? That the object of the mind is mind-made (manomaya). (Ven. Ñāṇananda)

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." (Thomas Sowell)


Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine