It really is the closest approximation of the dhamma. The Buddha would've likely stayed silent if you asked him if there was a reality independent of observers.SDC wrote:He briefly explains how he sees Hume's phenomenalist view to be very closely related to the dhamma. And this view, being rooted in both idealism and empiricism, is pretty much the philosophical opposite of realism.
Is Theravada "Realist"?
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
What about the idea of asaññasatta where it is said that only matter (rūpa) is present and no perception (sañña)? That shows that Buddhism allows for (sañña) independent rūpa to exist. Since, as I understand it, sañña accompanies all mental states, a state without sañña would be without any other mental factors or consciousness. So asaññasatta is an example of a plane where only rūpa can be present.Viscid wrote:It really is the closest approximation of the dhamma. The Buddha would've likely stayed silent if you asked him if there was a reality independent of observers.SDC wrote:He briefly explains how he sees Hume's phenomenalist view to be very closely related to the dhamma. And this view, being rooted in both idealism and empiricism, is pretty much the philosophical opposite of realism.
Also similar with saññāvedayitanirodha in human world. So the Buddha as recorded in the suttas did answer this question.
With best wishes,
Alex
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27860
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
Greetings Alex,
Metta,
Retro.
Yes, I intended to include anything that falls under the Theravada banner... but in saying that, I recognise that respondents might see some parts as realist, and some parts as not, so if such differentiation is observed it would be relevant to the topic.Alex123 wrote:Theravada is a very broad term. Do you include Abhidhamma or not?
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
I am not familiar with the source, but I have a hunch that 'rūpa' doesn't necessarily translate into 'matter' in this context.Alex123 wrote:What about the idea of asaññasatta where it is said that only matter (rūpa) is present and no perception (sañña)? That shows that Buddhism allows for (sañña) independent rūpa to exist. Since, as I understand it, sañña accompanies all mental states, a state without sañña would be without any other mental factors or consciousness. So asaññasatta is an example of a plane where only rūpa can be present.
As the fourth jhana preceeds the arupa jhanas, 'rūpa' in this case may mean what preceeds the perception of the infinitude of space: space with limits.encyclopedia.com wrote:asaññasattā (Pāli, unconscious beings). Class of gods (devas) who exist on a noumenal plane without conscious experience of any kind. These are typically former practitioners of meditation who, having immersed themselves in the fourth dhyāna for long periods, now incline to dwell with their minds untroubled by any kind of thought or sensation.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27860
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
Greetings,
Is an explanation of rupa, interpreted as matter, realist?
Metta,
Retro.
Is an explanation of rupa, interpreted as matter, realist?
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
Absolutely.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Is an explanation of rupa, interpreted as matter, realist?
Metta,
Retro.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
Hi Alex,Alex123 wrote:Hello SDC,
In the early suttas the meditator's body can exist independently of perception and feelings in the state called saññāvedayitanirodha. So personal perception (saññā) and feeling (vedanā) are not causes of the material body.
We cannot will things to change. The external world is not one's imagination, that in theory could be manipulated through "lucid dreaming" or change of perception. This can occur only in a lucid dream.
Because we cannot alter external world, we cannot base stable happiness on it. Pleasure, status, and all the "good" stuff is ultimately dukkha and we need to realize that completely so as to see futility of trying to attain what we cannot attain from the world. The more we see uncontrollability of the world, the more dispassion can be developed leading to cessation of all dukkha.
With best wishes,
Alex
Having not seen either viewpoint stand fully true in my own experience, I cannot say I disagree with you, even though I want to say, "I disagree". I very much appreciate the things the Venerable Punnaji brings to the table, and although it did make a lot of sense to me and his explanation was thorough, I can't fully declare that he is correct. I just wanted to let Retro hear it to perhaps clarify his own ideas.
However, I will say that what I have understood intellectually, and with what I have observed so far in my practice, the dhamma is not the way you described. Once again, I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm just not in a place where I understand it that way. I may as time goes on.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
Yes.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Is an explanation of rupa, interpreted as matter, realist?
Metta,
Retro.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
Space with what kind of limits, made of what?Viscid wrote:I am not familiar with the source, but I have a hunch that 'rūpa' doesn't necessarily translate into 'matter' in this context.Alex123 wrote:What about the idea of asaññasatta where it is said that only matter (rūpa) is present and no perception (sañña)? That shows that Buddhism allows for (sañña) independent rūpa to exist. Since, as I understand it, sañña accompanies all mental states, a state without sañña would be without any other mental factors or consciousness. So asaññasatta is an example of a plane where only rūpa can be present.
As the fourth jhana preceeds the arupa jhanas, 'rūpa' in this case may mean what preceeds the perception of the infinitude of space: space with limits.encyclopedia.com wrote:asaññasattā (Pāli, unconscious beings). Class of gods (devas) who exist on a noumenal plane without conscious experience of any kind. These are typically former practitioners of meditation who, having immersed themselves in the fourth dhyāna for long periods, now incline to dwell with their minds untroubled by any kind of thought or sensation.
The Buddha was clear when He defined rūpa:
"The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Four great elements have to exist for it to be called "rūpa".
asaññasattā still are in rūpaloka corresponding to 4th Jhāna plane, not arūpaloka.
And rūpa can still be present and seen by others when one is in saññāvedayitanirodha.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27860
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
Greetings Tilt, all,
For readers, I have attached below what seem to be some pertinent highlights from the interview, as they relate to the question of "Is Theravada Realist?"... (actual quotes by Nanananda are in quotation marks, the rest are by the author)
Retro.
Setting aside for the moment the clever use of the word "matter", one argument I have read suggests it does. It is made by Nananada Bhikkhu here in this interview... http://nidahas.com/2010/09/nanananda-heretic-sage-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;tiltbillings wrote:The real question is is: Does it really matter?Is Theravada "Realist"?
For readers, I have attached below what seem to be some pertinent highlights from the interview, as they relate to the question of "Is Theravada Realist?"... (actual quotes by Nanananda are in quotation marks, the rest are by the author)
Metta,"Extremism is found not only in ethics, but also in various kinds of views. The duality of asti and nāsti has a long history. I don’t have much knowledge in the Vedas, but I remember in Ṛg Veda, in the Nāsādīya Sūkta, you get the beautiful phrase nāsadāsīn no sadāsīt tadānīṃ. They were speculating about the beginnings: did existence come from non-existence or vice-versa."
“All those kinds of dualities, be it asti/nāsti or sabbaṃ ekattaṃ/sabbaṃ puthuttaṃ etc. were rejected by the Buddha: majjhena Tathāgato Dhammaṃ deseti – he taught the Dhamma by the middle. It’s not just the middle path. It’s not a mixture of 50% of each. We usually think that the middle is between two ends. It’s a rejection of both ends and an introduction of a novel standpoint."
...
The impossibility of making categorical statements about existence was discussed extensively in Bhante Ñāṇananda’s The Magic of the Mind, and he reminds me again about the importance of the Kālakārāma Sutta which provided the basis for that book. He quickly adds that the Buddha’s stand is not something like that of his contemporary sceptic agnostic Sañjaya Bellaṭṭhiputta, the so-called eel-wriggler; rather, the situation is beyond what could be expressed through the linguistic medium. It can only be known individually: paccattaṃ veditabbo.
...
His interpretation of paṭiccasamuppāda, which dramatically deviates from the traditional exegesis, has earned Bhante Ñāṇananda a few vehement critics. He amusedly mentions a recent letter sent by a monk where he was accused of ‘being a disgrace to the Theriya tradition’. This criticism, no doubt coming from a Theravāda dogmatist, is understandable seeing how accommodating Bhante Ñāṇananda is when it comes to teachings traditionally considered Mahāyāna, hence taboo for any self-respecting Theravādin. However, if one delves deeper, one would see that he is only trying to stay as close as possible to early Buddhist teachings.
“I didn’t quote from the Mahāyāna texts in the Nibbāna sermons,” he says, “because there was no need. All that was needed was already found in the Suttas. Teachers like Nāgārjuna brought to light what was already there but was hidden from view. Unfortunately his later followers turned it in to a vāda.”
He goes on to quote two of his favourite verses from Ven. Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamādhyamakakārikā (as usual, from memory):
Śūnyatā sarva-dṛṣtīnaṃ proktā niḥsaranaṃ jinaiḥ,
yeṣāṃ śūnyatā-dṛṣtis tān asādhyān babhāṣire [MK 13.8]
The Victorious Ones have declared that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. Those who are possessed of the view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible.
Sarva-dṛṣti-prahāṇāya yaḥ saddharmam adeśayat,
anukampam upādāya taṃ namasyāmi gautamaṃ [MK 26.30]
I reverently bow to Gautama who, out of compassion, has taught the doctrine in order to relinquish all views.
.....
“When I first read the Kārikā I too was doubting Ven. Nāgārjuna’s sanity” he laughs. “But the work needs to be understood in the context. He was taking a jab at the Sarvāstivādins. To be honest, even the others deserve the rebuke, although they now try to get away by using Sarvāstivāda as an excuse. How skilled Ven. Nāgārjuna must have been, to compose those verses so elegantly and filling them with so much meaning, like the Dhammapada verses. It’s quite amazing."
....
To end the discussion I pick up the thorniest of issues. I ask: “What is a ‘thing’? Is it completely imaginary, or is it something made by the mind using the ingredients ‘out there’?” A straightforward answer to that rather extremist question would make Bhante Ñāṇananda’s position clear on the gamut of views.
“I’m sure you have read Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation of the Saṃyutta Nikāya. You must have come across the Pheṇapindūpama Sutta. In the notes you’ll see Ven. Bodhi explaining that although the lump is illusory, the ingredients aren’t. It is worse when it comes to the magic show. He says that only the magic is not real; the magician’s appurtenances are. This is a distortion of the simile given by the Buddha. We must appreciate the great work done by Ven. Bodhi, but it is unfortunate that he is bound by the commentarial tradition.
“What is considered the ‘truth’ is relative to each individual. Each person gives evidence in the court of reality based on his own level of experience. For example, parents often give false explanations to their little children. But these are true to the kids. When asked, the kid will tell what his parents told him. It’s true for the child, but not for us. In the famous commentarial story about Ven. Tissa Thera we find him seeing a woman as a skeleton, and saying so when asked by her husband. The venerable was closer to the truth.
“When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. But how do we reach the ultimate truth? This is beautifully explained in the Dhātuvibhaṇga Sutta: Taṃ saccaṃ, yaṃ amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ. And from the Dvayatānupassanā Sutta: amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ tad ariyā saccato vidū. It is Nibbāna that is of non-falsifying nature, where there is no ‘thing’. Nibbāna is the highest truth because there is no other truth to transcend it.
“The Buddha called himself the first chick in this era to break out of the egg of ignorance. All these wonderful things we do such as space travel all happen inside this saḷāyatana shell. If paṭiccasamuppāda is presented properly, perhaps a few more chicks would be able to break through today.
“Ven. Nāgārjuna was right: at the end, all is empty. We are not willing to accept that existence is a perversion. Existence is suffering precisely because it is a perversion.”
It may not be a categorical answer, and it probably isn’t possible to give one.
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
I don't think it was intended to be understood that the elements are existing independent of a subject. But I am not saying that there is only the subject imagining all these objects.Alex123 wrote:The Buddha was clear when He defined rūpa:
"The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Four great elements have to exist for it to be called "rūpa".
These elements can be identified in experience. Whether it is something I am seeing in front of me right now or something I am imagining, those elements can be identified in that experience. That make sense to me, but that doesn't make it correct.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
"Truth is relative" is a powerful tool used by the sophists to prove validity of additional, their own views using rhetoric and logic.“What is considered the ‘truth’ is relative to each individual. Each person gives evidence in the court of reality based on his own level of experience. For example, parents often give false explanations to their little children. But these are true to the kids. When asked, the kid will tell what his parents told him. It’s true for the child, but not for us. In the famous commentarial story about Ven. Tissa Thera we find him seeing a woman as a skeleton, and saying so when asked by her husband. The venerable was closer to the truth.
"The truth is one,[1] there is no second ..." - Snp 4.12Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration...Sophists are considered the founding fathers of relativism in the Western World... Notably, it was Protagoras who coined the phrase, "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not."...In a well known paraphrased dialogue with Socrates, Protagoras said: "What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We could more correctly state that perceptions are relative, but not The Truth. Dhamma is true, adhamma is false.
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
So if a subject doesn't truly exist, than who "imagines" or experiences all these objects?SDC wrote:I don't think it was intended to be understood that the elements are existing independent of a subject. But I am not saying that there is only the subject imagining all these objects.Alex123 wrote:The Buddha was clear when He defined rūpa:
"The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Four great elements have to exist for it to be called "rūpa".
These elements can be identified in experience. Whether it is something I am seeing in front of me right now or something I am imagining, those elements can be identified in that experience. That make sense to me, but that doesn't make it correct.
Just the experience. But this experience has to be real.
Also, I think that we need to keep in mind that perception of an object, and object as the source (of experience, perception, etc) are different layers.
One can be mistaken about the truth, but it doesn't mean that mistake for that person is The Truth.
Truth is one, and wrong opinions about it are another.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27860
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
Greetings Alex,
If it is, I don't think there was any suggestion in those words of each person having a subjective Dhamma of their own. In fact, by saying "The venerable was closer to the truth" it is made quite clear that Relativism is not at play.
Metta,
Retro.
Do you know what word is being translated here as "truth"? Is it "Dhamma"?Alex123 wrote:"The truth is one,[1] there is no second ..." - Snp 4.12
If it is, I don't think there was any suggestion in those words of each person having a subjective Dhamma of their own. In fact, by saying "The venerable was closer to the truth" it is made quite clear that Relativism is not at play.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?
I don't think that "truth" and "reality" are synonym. In my understanding applying the term "reality" (as argument) coincides with an absolute claim whereas "truth" is relative from the first place because every alleged "truth" is a contextual statement which can be validly called "truth" if there is proof.
Kind regards
Kind regards
Last edited by ground on Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:10 am, edited 2 times in total.