Lazy_eye wrote:My answer was that no, it is not substance dualism because according to Theravada, consciousness does not come into being on its own, but arises together with the other aggregates. Form and mind are mutually dependent. The last moment of past life consciousness takes place in a body, as does the first moment of present life consciousness. There's no point at which consciousness just "hangs in the air" all by itself.
Shonin wrote:What you have described is not Non-dualism. You have described Monism.
Here's a rundown:
Dualism: There are two fundamentally different kinds of 'stuff'.
Monism: Fundamentally, there is only one kind of stuff - mind or matter. There are two types:
- Idealism: Everything is Mind - the appearance of physical things is a kind of illusion
- Physicalism: Everything is Physical - the appearance of mental things is a kind of illusion
Non-dualism is a rejection of Dualism without asserting a Monism. Mind and Matter are 'not two' - they arise together in some sense.
PeterB wrote:The appeal to the authority of Bhikkhu Bodhi is not to him as a philosopher. It is to him as one who in his life and teachings shows a consistant degree of Insight into the teachings of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon.
Insight which has been gained through meditation practises, rather than on websites.
PeterB wrote:A crucial part of the Theravadin understanding is that there is no a priori consciousness , either individual nor collective, no "Buddha Nature". That consciousness arises dependently together with everything else, as you say.
The Buddhadhamma of the Canon is ruthlessly radical.
Sobeh wrote:As long as it is defined as somehow being Metaphysics, it's to be discarded as irrelevant. Non-dualism, however one details it, is still an ontological claim. If people want to talk meaningful philosophy, let's investigate Buddhist epistemology and metaethics.
PeterB wrote:Thank you Nana. I will stick with Bhikkhu Bodhi thanks as its rooted in Theravada pragmatism rather abstract surmising. If I set any store by Nagarjuna et al. I wouldnt be on this forum.
PeterB wrote:Thank you Nana.
PeterB wrote:I will stick with Bhikkhu Bodhi thanks as its rooted in Theravada pragmatism rather abstract surmising.
PeterB wrote:....A perfunctory perusal of this thread will I think show a number of Theravadin students taking the same view as Bhikkhu Bodhi, i.e. that duality and non duality is simply not addressed by the Buddha....
PeterB wrote:A perfunctory perusal of this thread will I think show a number of Theravadin students taking the same view as Bhikkhu Bodhi, i.e. that duality and non duality is simply not addressed by the Buddha.
PeterB wrote:A careful reading will show that what is being offered is not an alternative understanding of duality/non duality, rather a non engagement with the issue.
PeterB wrote:I have no desire to comment on madhyamika non duality.
PeterB wrote:I guarantee one thing. I will not join any Mahayana forum that you belong to in order to argue the Theravada view.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], soapy3 and 8 guests