Is Theravada "Realist"?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by SDC »

Alex123 wrote:So if a subject doesn't truly exist, than who "imagines" or experiences all these objects?
Just the experience. But this experience has to be real.
It is real. It is happening. No denial of that at all. The experience of whatever (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking) is happening.
Alex123 wrote: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.
I couldn't agree more.

EDIT - I may be done for the night. This has been a great discussion so far. Take care, all. :smile:
“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
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

Alex123 wrote:What about state called cessation of perception and feelings (saññāvedayitanirodha)? The meditator's body doesn't vanish when his perception & feelings cease. This shows that matter (rūpa) can exist independent of one's perception and feelings.
But not presumably independent of consciousness?

Spiny
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

Alex123 wrote: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.
Does it help to describe rupa as an appearance rather than as an object?

Spiny
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

Prasadachitta wrote:What is ontological independence?
It wasn't my phrase, but I think ontological implies independence of an observer.

Spiny
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

Alex123 wrote: But this experience has to be real.
It certainly feels real.

Spiny
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

Nicro wrote: I was saying reality is our experience and what we experience would be reality. It then goes further because by saying what we experience is reality, we can't say if there is anything beyond what we experience. Experience = Reality= Experience.
:goodpost:
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by piotr »

Hi retrofuturist,
retrofuturist wrote:Do you know what word is being translated here as "truth"? Is it "Dhamma"?
Sacca.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Piotr,

Thanks as always for your Pali contributions.

In what sense do you believe the word is being used in the quotation that Alex provided? Do you believe it supports his contention?

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."
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by Nyana »

retrofuturist wrote: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)
Ven. Ñāṇananda has understood this deeper than most. All things are relational and merely established according to agreed upon conventions.

The Paradox of the Heap.

Far better to walk away from the whole language game, calm the mind, and then let go of even that.

:buddha1:
Last edited by Nyana on Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by pulga »

"I can paint A and I can paint B, and I can paint them both on the same canvas: I
cannot, however, paint the both, nor paint the A and the B" (from Husserl's Sixth Logical Investigation)

"...in order to discover the general it is only necessary to put two particulars together, and what they have in common will be the general. This, I think, is clear. But also we can put it in a different way: we can say that whenever two particulars are found together, they ipso facto reveal the general. This means that whenever we perceive a togetherness of particulars, we do so because we perceive what they have in common (though it may be difficult to say precisely what it is). Whenever we see two (or more) different things that nevertheless seem to belong to each other, we are at once entitled to turn the situation the other way round and say that we see one and the same more general thing presenting two different aspects.

If you have grasped this idea, you will see that it can be applied to perception of change. In perception of change, we have first A, and then B; but we must also have the 'belonging-togetherness' of A and B, otherwise we fail to connect A's disappearance and B's appearance and do not say that 'A has changed into B' or that 'A has become B'." (from Ved. Ñanavira's to Mr. Wijerama)

"We have seen that categorial perception is founded on sense perception but does
not reduce to it, and that categorial objectualities are founded on sensible objects but do not reduce to
them. Now, once categorial objectualities of this first level — like sets or relations
— are given to us, new categorial intuitions can be built on the corresponding categorial
intuitions of the first level, and in such categorial intuitions of the second level new categorial
objectualities of second level are constituted — eg, relations between sets, say bijections between sets, and also sets of
relations, sets of sets (as, eg, the power set of a given set), and so forth. In this way, repeating the process indefinitely, a hierarchy of categorial intuitions is obtained and a
corresponding hierarchy of categorial objectualities is given to us, so that in categorial intuitions
of the nth level categorial objectualities of the nth level are constituted." ( from Husserl or Frege?: meaning, objectivity, and mathematics by Claire Ortiz Hill, Guillermo E. Rosado Haddock

I find the last quote bears a striking resemblance to Ven. Ñanavira's Fundamental Structure.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by Alex123 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Alex,
Alex123 wrote:"The truth is one,[1] there is no second ..." - Snp 4.12
Do you know what word is being translated here as "truth"? Is it "Dhamma"?

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. :)
I believe it is this phrase:
"The truth (saccaṃ) is one,[1] there is no second ..."
888."Ekaṃ hi saccaṃ na dutiyamatthi"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... html#v.878" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by Alex123 »

Spiny O'Norman wrote:
Alex123 wrote:What about state called cessation of perception and feelings (saññāvedayitanirodha)? The meditator's body doesn't vanish when his perception & feelings cease. This shows that matter (rūpa) can exist independent of one's perception and feelings.
But not presumably independent of consciousness?
Spiny
rūpa can be independent of consciousness as well. This is basic Dhamma:

"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.
Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear.
Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose.
Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue.
Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body.
"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please note that consciousness here is dependent on material (sense base and sense object). Also, consciousness is a product of material causes, not the other way around. Since consciousness is not the first cause, it doesn't determines The Truth.


Another interesting quote is:

"But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

World can exist without any beings to percieve it.
User avatar
Viscid
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by Viscid »

Alex123 wrote: "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.
Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear.
Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose.
Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue.
Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. "
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... .than.html

Please note that consciousness here is dependent on material (sense base and sense object). Also, consciousness is a product of material causes, not the other way around.
'Dependent on' does not mean 'to be a product of,' rather it describes nama-rupa and consciousness as being inter-dependent.
Loka Sutta wrote:Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world' (loka) it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?

"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If a 'world' had an existence completely independent of observation, then why even speak of the sense bases when defining it?
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by Alex123 »

Viscid wrote: 'Dependent on' does not mean 'to be a product of,' rather it describes nama-rupa and consciousness as being inter-dependent.
Dependent on does show that consciousness is dependent on something, ex: sense organs and sense bases which structurally come first.

I wasn't talking about nāmarūpa. I was talking about dependence of consciousness on something, which shows that it is a product of certain causes rather than being some ultimate and causeless phenomenon.

Viscid wrote:
Loka Sutta wrote:Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world' (loka) it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?

"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If a 'world' had an existence completely independent of observation, then why even speak of the sense bases when defining it?
[/quote]

Buddha talked about what can serve as basis for craving and resultant dukkha. Through interaction of sense bases and sense objects, consciousness is produced. Of course Buddha limited very much talk about things independent of experience because dukkha is experiential and its cessation is within experiential. Buddha was pragmatic teacher and focused on origination & cessation of dukkha. But what is recorded in the suttas does support existence of rūpa independent of nāma and viññāṇa.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is Theravada "Realist"?

Post by SDC »

Alex123 wrote:
rūpa can be independent of consciousness as well. This is basic Dhamma:

"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.
Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear.
Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose.
Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue.
Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body.
"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please note that consciousness here is dependent on material (sense base and sense object). Also, consciousness is a product of material causes, not the other way around. Since consciousness is not the first cause, it doesn't determines The Truth.
I think this is just another breakdown of experience in order for it to be observed and understood properly in separate, specific ways. I don't see that it is confirming an objective reality.

If you or I believe in matter existing "outside of experience", we are believing in the validity of a concept (that we constructed) which represents all other possible concepts that we believe could eventually be formed. But since it is explicitly something "outside of experience" it will never be experienced, because once observed it would cease to "outside". It will not fit the criteria for that concept of matter "outside of experience". Defining it strictly as "outside experience" doesn't allow it to ever be anything, but a fantasy.

I think that makes sense. :thinking: :rolleye:
“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
Post Reply